No community start suggestion yet.
When a stolen lamb grows into a ram, does the thief acquire it through shinui? The Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes between Rabbi Loy and Rabbi Chanina hinges on whether the change is enough to exempt from the four- and five-fold payment. Rashi (רש"י) reads Rabbi Loy as saying the animal lost its status as a lamb—so slaughter doesn't replicate the original theft—while the Braisa (according to Beis Shammai) holds the original identity persists. The shiur unpacks Rashi's chiddush that keren can be paid ke-hashta and kefel kidemikar, and contrasts it with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s and Ritva's approaches to kinyan geneivah.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 65b that explores the principle of shinui (change) in the context of theft. The core question is whether a thief who steals a lamb (tle) that grows into a ram (ayal) acquires ownership through shinui, and what consequences this has for the liability of daled v'hei (four- or five-fold payment) if the thief subsequently slaughters or sells the animal. Rabbi Loy holds that if a stolen lamb becomes a ram and is then slaughtered, the thief is exempt from daled v'hei because "shelo hu tovei'ach, shelo hu mokher"—the slaughter is not of the object he stole. Rabbi Chanina challenges this with a Braisa that explicitly obligates payment kein she-ganav (as when stolen), implying that shinui does not confer ownership. The Gemara (גמרא) resolves the apparent contradiction by suggesting the Braisa follows Beis Shammai, who hold that shinui bi-mekomo omedes (change in place does not confer acquisition).
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 65b
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.
