A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief slaughters a stolen animal that has weakened, what determines the payment—the value at the moment of theft, at the start of weakening, or at slaughter? Rashi (רש"י) holds kasha (weakening) is the *beginning* of shechita, triggering liability from the first ounce of loss. Tosafos (תוספות) counters: you value the animal the moment *before* the change, treating it like death by shinui.
This shiur delves into Bava Kamma 65a and the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the proper time to assess the value of a stolen animal that has been slaughtered after weakening. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where an animal is stolen while fat (shemena), weakens (kachisha), and is then slaughtered. According to Rav, keren is paid ke'sha'at geneiva (value at the time of theft) and keifel ke'hashta (current value), but when there is tvicha/mechira, even dal v'hei (four/five-fold payment) is ke'sha'at geneiva. The Gemara's sevara of "mali kol ha-kula, mali kol ha-palga" suggests that just as killing the entire animal triggers payment from before the shinui, partial weakening should also trigger payment from an earlier point. Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental problem with Rashi's explanation. Rashi says that because the animal's weakening (kachisha) is the *beginning* of the tvicha, the measure of liability starts from that moment. But Rabbi Zweig asks: how can the kachisha be considered the "beginning of tvicha" when the animal is merely weakening, not being slaughtered? If you simply let it weaken to death without slaughter, there would be no liability for dal v'hei at all. Moreover, this approach cannot explain why keifel is also paid ke'sha'at geneiva, since keifel has nothing to do with tvicha—it's a penalty for theft itself. Rashi's language, "achalta tficha," seems to treat the weakening process as part of the slaughter, which Rabbi Zweig finds difficult to accept at face value.
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 65a
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.
