A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does yiush (despair) transfer ownership to a thief, and if so, why is stolen property unfit for korban? The shiur analyzes Ulah's position that yiush doesn't confer full kinyan when mitzvah (מצוה) bo ba'aver applies, exploring the machlokes between Rabbeinu Tam—who holds yiush does transfer ownership but korban remains pasul—and the Ri, who distinguishes cases where kinyan and hekdesh occur simultaneously.
This shiur on Bava Kamma 57a examines a fundamental question in the laws of theft and korban: whether yiush (the original owner's despair of recovering stolen property) confers kinyan (ownership) on the thief, and if so, why stolen property remains disqualified for use as a korban. The Gemara (גמרא)'s central tension is that if yiush does transfer ownership, the item should be valid for korban; yet the Torah (תורה) clearly states that a stolen korban is pasul. The shiur opens with a discussion of shinui hashem (ה׳) (a change of designation) and whether it constitutes a valid kinyan. The Gemara asks why shinui hashem bedieved (after the fact) wouldn't work for hekdesh (sanctification) or terumah—if the nignav (original owner) can undo the shinui, it seems the ganav (thief) never truly acquired it. Tosfos addresses this by distinguishing between cases where the nignav can reverse the shinui (in which case it's not a kinyan) and cases where only the ganav can reverse it through a complex process. The shiur analyzes what makes a shinui "not easily reversible" (lo be'nachis) such that it effects a kinyan.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Bava Kamma 57a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
