No community start suggestion yet.
Does kefel (double payment) apply to the original act of theft, or to the ongoing withholding? The shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 65a and reconciles Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות): kefel is not for a second act of geneivah (withholding) but for *continuing* the original theft. When a thief fattens a stolen animal, he pays kefel only on what he originally stole—unless the improvement occurred naturally.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Bava Kamma 65a, focusing on the conceptual difference between payment of keren (principal) and kefel (double restitution) in cases of theft. The central question is: what exactly triggers liability for kefel—the original act of taking, or the subsequent withholding of the stolen object? The shiur opens with a fundamental question regarding the case of "tavach u'mocher" (slaughtered and sold a stolen animal). The Gemara (גמרא) and Tosefta discuss a thief who fattens a stolen animal and then slaughters it. If the improvement (fattening) was done by the thief's own actions (huchsha be'yadayim), there seems to be a question whether this creates a new act of theft or whether it's merely a continuation of the original theft. The Nesivos holds that tavach u'mocher itself constitutes a new act of geneivah—the slaughter is a fresh transgression. But if so, why would there ever be exemption from kefel in such a case?
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.
