No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief cannot locate the stolen object, does yiush (the owner's despair) effect a kinyan? The Gemara (גמרא) presents three positions on yiush she'lo mida'as (despair without knowledge). Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary suggests yiush is kinyan only exists as a rabbinic concession to avoid burdening the thief with searching, raising questions about the scope and nature of takanas hashavim.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 56a, focusing on the machlokes regarding yiush she'lo mida'as—when the owner despairs of recovering stolen property before knowing who took it. The Gemara (גמרא) presents three distinct positions: (1) yiush is kinyan according to the beraisa, (2) there is a fundamental distinction between heter (permitted acquisition, like finding) versus issur (forbidden acquisition, like theft), and (3) yiush provides no acquisition at all except through takanas hashavim (the rabbinic enactment protecting penitents). Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, which introduces significant conceptual challenges. Rashi explains that by metzius (found objects), the finder acquires through yiush because he came to possess it permissibly. However, by gezeila (theft), where the thief acquired it unlawfully, yiush should not effect a kinyan at all. The only reason the thief can keep the object (by paying its value rather than returning it) is takanas hashavim—the rabbinic ordinance preventing thieves from being discouraged from repentance by having to search for lost stolen items.
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 56a
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.
