A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a victim despairs of recovering stolen property (yiush), does it leave his ownership entirely? The shiur analyzes whether yiush accomplishes something midoraisa even when it's only kono miderabanan. Rabba and Rav Yosef may be arguing whether yiush removes the item from the nigzal's reshus—the basis for takanas hashavim and the invalidation of korbanot brought from gezeila after yiush.
This shiur delves into Bava Kamma 56a-56b, analyzing the fundamental machlokes between Rabba and Rav Yosef regarding yiush (the victim's despair of recovering stolen property). The central question is whether yiush kono (yiush effects acquisition) works only miderabanan or accomplishes something even midoraisa. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a korban brought from stolen property after yiush is valid. According to Rabba, yiush is kono—the thief acquires the item through the victim's despair. According to Rav Yosef, yiush is eino kono miderabanan but works through takanas hashavim (rabbinic enactment requiring payment). The Gemara brings a proof from the invalidation of mishkav hagozal (bedding of a zav acquired through theft), suggesting that after yiush, the item should be considered belonging to someone else (the thief) and therefore not transmit tumah as the original owner's bedding.
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-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.
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.
