A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief steals a lamb that grows into a ram, does the change create a kinyan? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbi Eloy and Rav Chanina over whether shinui (change) that happens by itself (memeila) effects a kinyan. A central difficulty: if it's not a real kinyan, why is the thief exempt from daled v'hei but still obligated to pay keren for the object as it was at the time of the shinui?
The shiur focuses on a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 55b concerning the nature of kinyan through shinui (change). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the case of a thief who steals a lamb (taleh) which subsequently grows into a ram (ayil). The fundamental question is whether this change creates a kinyan for the thief, and what the payment obligations are if he slaughters or sells the animal. Rashi (רש"י)'s position presents significant difficulties. Rashi explains that the thief acquires the animal through the shinui only regarding the exemption from daled v'hei (the four- or five-fold payment). However, for keren (principal), the thief must still pay according to the value at the time of the shinui (kahashta). The difficulty is understanding what kind of kinyan this is—if it's not a real kinyan and the animal still belongs to the owner, why should the thief be exempt from daled v'hei? And if it is a kinyan, why must he pay keren based on the shinui value rather than the original theft 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 55b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
