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.
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.
