No community start suggestion yet.
When a ganav weakens a stolen animal before slaughtering it, does he pay based on its original weight or its reduced weight at the moment it becomes weakened? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Bava Kamma 65a, revealing that Rashi views hakasha (weakening) as the beginning of the process of total removal from the owner, while Tosafos measures payment from the moment of actual change in status.
This shiur explores a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Bava Kamma 65a regarding the timing of payment when a ganav weakens (makchish) a stolen animal before slaughtering it. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when one steals a shemena (fattened animal) and weakens it to a kachsha before shechita, one pays arba v'chamishah for a shemena, not for a kachsha. The question is: what precisely does "paying for a shemena" mean? Rabbi Zweig begins by presenting the Ri's (Rabbeinu Isaac) explanation that payment is measured before the shinui (change), not after. The Ri draws an analogy to an animal that is killed entirely (kotla kula) versus one that is weakened (kotla palga). When an animal dies, one doesn't pay based on its carcass value but on its value when alive, before the shinui. The same principle applies to weakening—one pays based on the value before the change occurred.
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.
