No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't a second thief (ganav min haganav) owe kefel to the victim? The Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between "eino shelo" and "eino bereshuso" reveals two dimensions of ownership. The shiur develops a fundamental chiluk: in gezeilah there's a din of heishev requiring physical return, creating a relationship with the victim, while in geneivah only monetary obligation exists, leaving the second thief with no chiyuv keren to the original owner.
The shiur opens with the Mishna's ruling that a ganav achar ganav (second thief) does not pay tashlumei kefel to the first thief or to the victim. The Or Sameach (Rav Meir Simcha) raises a fundamental question: Since Rab Shimon holds davar hago'rem l'mamon k'mamon dami, and the stolen object causes monetary consequence to the first thief (who remains liable to the victim), shouldn't the second thief be obligated in kefel as if he stole from an owner? The Or Sameach answers that the din of keren must go to the victim (nignav), since the object belongs to him. But if keren goes to the victim and kefel would go to the first thief, this contradicts the concept of davar hago'rem l'mamon—we never find a case where keren and kefel are split between two parties. The Rama, citing Teshuvos HaRivash, rules that a fence (chovel) who receives stolen goods from a thief is kosher l'edus (valid as a witness). The Tumim challenges this: if one who denies a deposit (kofer b'pikadon) is pasul l'edus even though the taking was legal, how much more so should a fence be disqualified when both the taking and holding are illegal?
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.
