No community start suggestion yet.
Can a shomer become a ganav (thief) through mere denial (kefira) without swearing, and is keffel (double payment) owed? The shiur examines whether tayn ta'anis ganav (claiming a thief stole it) requires a shvuah to trigger liability, and explores Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling that a shomer who secretly takes an item without the owner's knowledge pays keffel immediately—sparking debate over whether geneiva requires kinyan geneiva or merely an issur geneiva.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 53b concerning the parameters of tayn ta'anis ganav (a bailee claiming the deposit was stolen) and the requirement for keffel (double payment). The central question is whether a shomer who denies having an item becomes a ganav (thief) through the denial itself, or whether a shvuah (oath) is necessary to complete the act of geneiva. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Tosfos's position that when karka (land) is exempt from shvuah, one might think there would be no liability for tayn ta'anis ganav either. However, Tosfos assumes that where there is no din of shvuah at all, perhaps the kefira (denial) itself would constitute tayn ta'anis ganav. The shiur explores this premise: normally, kefira alone does not make one a ganav because the shomer still owes a shvuah, so he has not yet "stolen" the item—the owner can still demand the oath and potentially recover the property. However, if there is no din of shvuah, the kefira itself might be sufficient to create a ganav.
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 53b
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.
