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.
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.
