A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a thief instructs someone to slaughter a stolen animal and the shaliach does so on Shabbos (שבת), is the thief liable for the fourfold/fivefold payment? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question turns on whether shechita on Shabbos creates a kam lei b'derabbah minei problem. The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s novel reading: the thief did perform the melachah through shlichus but incurs no avon for Shabbos, so dal ve'hei liability remains.
The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 71a, which discusses the case of a ganav (thief) who steals an animal and has it slaughtered through a shaliach (agent) on Shabbos (שבת). The central question is whether the thief is liable for the fourfold or fivefold payment (arba v'chamisha) mandated by the Torah (תורה) when a thief slaughters or sells a stolen animal. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental difficulty: the Mishna holds that shechita yedei acher (slaughter through another) creates liability, which the Gemara attributes to Rabbi Meir. But there is a principle of ein shaliach l'dvar aveirah—there is no agency for sin. How then can the thief be liable when the shechita is done on Shabbos? The kashya is: v'chi zeh chotei v'zeh mechuyav—can one person sin while another is 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 71a
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.
