No community start suggestion yet.
What makes someone liable for the fourfold/fivefold payment when their agent slaughters stolen property on Shabbos (שבת)? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod: liability requires not merely slaughter, but specifically a "shechita of geneiva"—slaughter that continues the act of theft. When the agent slaughters on Shabbos for himself, it becomes a "shechita of Shabbos," breaking the liability chain; only true agency (shlichus) preserves the theft character of the act.
The shiur opens by reviewing the previous discussion about liability for slaughter (tevichah) through an agent (shliach) versus through another person (acher). The core question is whether liability arises because the agent acts on your behalf (true shlichus), or because you caused the slaughter to happen (grama). This depends on which pesukim the Gemara (גמרא) uses: "tachas" implies true agency is required, while other drashas might indicate causation alone suffices. Rabbi Zweig introduces the Ketzos HaChoshen's approach in Siman 182, analyzing a fundamental question: What happens when you appoint an agent to slaughter on Shabbos (שבת)? The Mishna LeMelech maintains that if you appointed someone to slaughter generally and they happened to slaughter on Shabbos, you're liable for dalet v'hei (fourfold/fivefold payment). But if you specifically instructed them to slaughter on Shabbos, there's ein shliach l'dvar aveira (no agency for sin)—since Shabbos violation creates its own prohibition, the agency doesn't take effect for the theft aspect either. The Tur, however, holds that even when explicitly instructing slaughter on Shabbos, the thief remains liable.
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 61a
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.
