No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a shomer liable for kefel when claiming "it was stolen"? The shiur develops the core machlokes between Rambam (רמב"ם) and Ra'avad: does ta'anis ta'anis ganav create kefel through the false claim itself (ma'aseh geneivah) or only when combined with a shevuah? The analysis demonstrates that kefel liability stems from removing the object from the owner's reshus through terminating one's din shemirah.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the sugya in Bava Kamma 62b dealing with ta'anis ta'anis ganav—when a shomer (guardian) claims an object was stolen. The fundamental question is what makes this claim constitute geneivah requiring kefel (double payment). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that on items where there is no din geneivah (such as karka/land), there should be no din of ta'anis ta'anis ganav. Tosafos (תוספות) raises the question: Why do we need a pasuk to exempt karka from ta'anis ta'anis ganav? Since there's no shevuah on karka (ein ish bo'in al karkos), and ta'anis ta'anis ganav requires a shevuah, it should be automatically exempt. Tosafos demonstrates from the Gemara later that kofeitz v'nishba (one who jumps to swear on his own) is not liable for ta'anis ta'anis ganav, proving that the shevuah is essential to the liability.
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.
