A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
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 (רש"י)-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara (גמרא)'s application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 61b, focusing on the case of a ganav who shechts a stolen animal for avodah zarah. The core question is why the ganav remains chayav for daled ve'hei (four- or five-fold payment) even though the animal becomes isur hana'ah (forbidden in benefit) immediately upon beginning the shechita. Since the animal no longer belongs to the owner once it's prohibited, the gemara (גמרא)'s question is: why should the ganav be liable? Rabbi Zweig begins with a foundational machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot. According to Rashi, the isur hana'ah takes effect at the beginning of the shechita only if we hold yesh noshrita mechilah latzo—that the entire act of shechita is considered effective from beginning to end. Since the shechita renders the animal prohibited from the outset, it cannot be considered the owner's property at the time the ganav completes the act. Tosafot, however, argues that even if we hold ein leshrita ela lifso (shechita is only effective at the final moment), the animal becomes prohibited immediately upon beginning the shechita. This is because isur hana'ah depends on the ma'aseh (the physical act) of shechting for avodah zarah, not on the technical completion of the shechita.
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 61b
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.
Does tzoros (pebbles kicked up by an animal) require three acts to become muad, and what is the nature of its payment? The shiur analyzes whether tzoros is fundamentally classified as regel (foot damage) or keren (horn damage), exploring how shinui (deviation) affects liability and whether damages paid are me'aliyah (from owner's estate) or migufo (from the animal itself).
