A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When is a stolen korban considered truly "stolen"? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod that the act of theft regarding a korban is only completed at the moment of shechitah, not when the animal is physically taken, because the owner's property right in a korban is intangible and only realizes at the moment of kaparah. This resolves major contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding ye'ush and mitzvah (מצוה) haba'ah ba'aveirah.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya of "korban olah hagazul" (a stolen elevation offering) on Bava Kamma 56b, focusing on reconciling seemingly contradictory positions of Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding when a stolen korban can be used and whether ye'ush (despair of recovery) creates valid acquisition. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses two scenarios: when someone steals an animal and then consecrates it, versus when someone steals an already-consecrated korban. The fundamental question is whether the original owner (ba'al) can fulfill his obligation with this korban, and whether the thief can use it after ye'ush.
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 56b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
