A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a ganav acquire stolen property through shinui (change)? Rashi (רש"י) distinguishes between changes that happen automatically (me'meila) and changes caused by action (bi'yadayim). The shiur develops that automatic improvements remain the owner's, since that value existed predictably, while degradation creates a kinyan because the ganav can no longer fulfill hashavat genevah.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י), the Rosh, and the Rif regarding the mechanics of the mitzvah (מצוה) of hashavat genevah (returning stolen property) and the din of shinui koneh (a change that transfers ownership to the thief). The discussion centers on Bava Kamma 56a and explores when a ganav acquires stolen property through shinui. Rashi's position is that the mitzvah of chaim shnayim yeshaleim requires literally returning the stolen object itself. If you steal a sheep, you must return a sheep. Paying money is not a fulfillment of hashavat genevah but rather a separate obligation of tashlumim ki'mechas hamodia b'yad (payment at present value). The Rosh disagrees, holding that money fulfills the mitzvah because the victim can use the money to purchase a replacement animal. Tosafos (תוספות) presents a third view: the din is one of gezeilah u'domeh—either the object or its monetary value—suggesting the obligation is fundamentally financial.
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 56a
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.
