No community start suggestion yet.
If burning a shtar creates no chiyuv keren because of din garmi, why should there be kefel? The shiur analyzes whether shtaros have shaveh kesef and whether kefel applies when there's no shaveh for the paper itself. Tosfos answers that although one is patur midin garmi because the chov can theoretically be resurrected, the shtar itself has market value and therefore kefel applies.
The shiur examines Bava Kamma 62b, focusing on whether the obligation of kefel (double payment) applies to stolen shtaros (promissory notes). The fundamental question arises from a tension in the Gemara (גמרא): if burning someone's shtar creates no obligation to pay keren (principal) because of the principle of lo dondin dinim d'garmi (we don't adjudicate indirect damages), why should there be any obligation of kefel? The shiur explores multiple approaches to understanding Tosfos's question. One possibility is that kefel, as one of the avos nezikin (primary categories of damages), requires a foundation in nezikin. If there's no chiyuv in the underlying din of nezikin, perhaps there can be no kefel. Another approach suggests that kefel may only apply where there is shaveh kesef—tangible monetary value—in the object stolen.
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 62b
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.
