No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief breaks what he stole, must he return the broken pieces or pay full value? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: geneiva (stealth theft) targets property, while gezeila (robbery) attacks the person himself. This yesod explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) holds paying money after shinui (change) is not a true fulfillment of "v'heishiv es ha-gezeila"—only a gezeiras ha-kasuv that removes malkos.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 56a's discussion of when a thief or robber must return stolen property versus paying its monetary value. The Gemara (גמרא) states that if the stolen object underwent a shinui (change), the thief need not return it but pays instead. Rashi (רש"י) suggests this is the thief's option—he may choose to return the object or pay money. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, implies the victim (nigzel) has the option to demand the object back, in which case the thief pays only the difference in value. The Rav Magin asks: if shinui koneh (change effects acquisition), why can the victim insist on getting the object back? It should belong to the thief. The Bach suggests that shinui only effects acquisition when done bi-yadayim (by hand), following Tosafos (תוספות) in Bava Kamma 66b. The Rav Magin counters that the Rambam's case of "gazal kli v'shavro" (stole a utensil and broke it) clearly involved breaking it by hand, making the Bach's approach difficult.
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.
