A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When someone steals from partners (shutfim) and slaughters the animal, does the five-fold payment apply if he admits to one partner but denies the other? The shiur explores whether "chamisha bakar" excludes "chamisha chatzi bakar" and analyzes two approaches: either the thief owes the partnership entity (and can be exempt when admitting to half), or owes each partner separately (requiring payment for each independent obligation).
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kama 71a dealing with the case of someone who steals an ox belonging to two partners (shutfim), slaughters it, and then admits (hodah) to one partner while denying (kofer) to the other. The central question is whether this person is liable for the five-fold payment (chamisha bakar) or is exempt because the payment would only be "chamisha chatzi bakar" (five half-oxen), which may not be included in the Torah (תורה)'s requirement. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute about whether the pasuk "chamisha bakar" includes or excludes "chamisha chatzi bakar." According to one opinion, the phrase "chamisha bakar v'lo chamisha chatzi bakar" means that partial payments are excluded, creating an exemption when the thief can only be liable for half. According to the opposing view (afilu chamisha chatzi bakar), even half-payments are included in the kenas obligation.
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 Kama 71a
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.
