A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a thief who steals from another thief avoid payment? The Mishna explains that keifel (double payment) applies to all stolen items, while arba v'chamisha (fourfold and fivefold) applies only to an ox or sheep. Gonev achar gonev (one who steals from a thief) is exempt even from keifel, establishing that you cannot pay arba v'chamisha without first being liable for keifel.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 62b, focusing on the Mishna's teaching about the differences between keifel (double payment) and arba v'chamisha (fourfold and fivefold payment) for thieves. The Mishna establishes that the measure of double payment is broader (meruba) than the measure of fourfold and fivefold payment, since double payment applies whether the stolen object has ruach chaim (life) or not, while arba v'chamisha only applies to an ox or sheep, as stated explicitly in the pasuk. The Gemara (גמרא) addresses several key issues. First, it discusses gonev achar gonev—when one person steals from a thief. The shiur clarifies that this refers to cases where the second thief then slaughters or sells the stolen animal. The Mishna teaches that such a person is exempt from both keifel and arba v'chamisha. The reason for exemption from arba v'chamisha is based on the principle "dalet v'hei v'lo gimel v'dalet"—the Torah (תורה) requires payment of four or five times the value, not three or four. Since the gonev achar gonev is already exempt from keifel, he cannot be liable for the higher payment of arba v'chamisha.
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 62b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
