A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is the fourfold payment for slaughtering or selling a stolen animal (tavach u'mechirah) a penalty for the sale, or for the theft? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that the payment is not for the mechirah but for the genevah—the sale merely transforms the thief's status. This yesod resolves Rav Yochanan's proof from gonev nefesh (kidnapping), where the penalty is also for genevah, not mechirah.
The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental debate between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet regarding whether tavach u'mechirah (slaughtering or selling a stolen animal) requires a hanu ma'aseh—a completed, valid transaction. Rav Nachman holds one is liable even before the owner's despair (lifnei yi'ush), without a hanu ma'aseh. Rav Sheshet, learning from the juxtaposition of slaughtering and selling, maintains both require a hanu ma'aseh. Rav Elazar agrees with Rav Sheshet, arguing that standard theft requires yi'ush of the owner. Rav Yochanan challenges Rav Elazar with a proof from gonev nefesh (kidnapping): the Torah (תורה) obligates one for kidnapping and selling a person, even though yi'ush cannot apply to a person (ein od ha'adam mi'ya'esh al atzmo). This proves liability exists without hanu ma'aseh. The shiur wrestles with a fundamental difficulty: how can we learn the laws of tavach u'mechirah from kidnapping? Kidnapping is not even a proper genevah in the technical sense—there is no kinyan genevah on a person, no real mechirah of a person. Moreover, by kidnapping, matanah (gift) does not create liability, only mechirah, whereas by tavach u'mechirah, matanah also obligates. Furthermore, some Rishonim hold kidnapping requires shinui reshus (actual transfer of domain), which is not required by tavach u'mechirah.
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 68b
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.
