A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a stolen item be consecrated (magdish) after ye'ush? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kamma 59b analyzes Reish Lakish's position that ye'ush is koneh, exploring whether the nignav or ganav can perform hekdesh. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between eino shelo and eino b'reshuso, showing how Reish Lakish's reliance on the Tznun enables hekdesh eino b'reshuso while still prohibiting eino shelo.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Bava Kamma 59b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether a ganav (thief) or nignav (victim) can be makdish (consecrate) a stolen object, and under what conditions. The central question revolves around the machlokes between Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding ye'ush (despair of recovery) and its effect on ownership. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the sugya, which appears to raise unnecessary points about the positions of Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rashi states that according to Rebbe Yochanan, one is chayav lifnei ye'ush (before despair), because chiyuv exists both before and after ye'ush. Meanwhile, Reish Lakish holds one is patur (exempt) after ye'ush because "chiyuv lifnei ye'ush, ha la'achar ye'ush kana shelo toveiach shelo mocheh" - the obligation exists before ye'ush, but after ye'ush it is as if he slaughtered what is not his to sell. The shiur questions why Rashi needs to elaborate on what appears obvious from the Gemara itself.
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 59b
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.
