A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does a thief pay according to the original value (ki demikora) versus current value (ki dehashta)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbi Loy and Rabbi Chanina regarding whether the second sale is a valid kinyan, and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s fundamental approach that obligates returning the actual stolen object (hashavas geneiva), not merely its monetary value.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 56a concerning the valuation of keren and kefel payments when a stolen animal has changed in value. The central question is whether a thief pays according to the value at the time of theft (ki demikora) or at the time of payment/standing in court (ki dehashta/ki shas modi be'din). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rabbi Loy (Rabbi Elazar ben Shimon) and Rabbi Chanina. Rabbi Loy holds that the second sale is koina (a valid kinyan/acquisition), while Rabbi Chanina holds ein sheini koina (the second sale is not valid). The Gemara attempts to prove from Rav's statement that kefel is paid ki shas modi be'din, creating a difficulty for Rabbi Loy's position.
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.
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.
