A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a ganav pays kefel or arba v'chamishah, does he pay based on the animal's value at the time of geneivah (kein sheganav) or at the time of judgment (k'shas hamoda b'din)? The shiur analyzes Rav's position that keren is kein sheganav but kefel and arba v'chamishah are k'shas hamoda b'din, exploring the crucial question of what "k'shas hamoda b'din" actually means—especially when the animal has been slaughtered or its condition has changed.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 65a dealing with the calculations of payment when a ganav (thief) must pay kefel (double payment) or arba v'chamishah (four or five times payment). The central question revolves around the proper time-point for valuation: is payment calculated kein sheganav (according to what was stolen) or k'shas hamoda b'din (at the time of standing in judgment)? The Gemara (גמרא) opens with Rav's position: keren (principal) is paid kein sheganav—according to the value at the time of theft—while tashlumei kefel (double payment) and tashlumei arba v'chamishah (four or fivefold payment) are calculated k'shas hamoda b'din. Rabbi Zweig immediately raises a fundamental difficulty: what does k'shas hamoda b'din mean? On its surface, it should mean the value at the actual moment of judgment. But if the animal has been slaughtered, it no longer exists as an animal at that moment—only as meat or a carcass. How can we assess its value k'shas hamoda b'din when there is no animal?
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.
