No community start suggestion yet.
When someone steals from their father and slaughters the animal, what happens when the father dies? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether Torah (תורה) law allows for half-payment obligations or only full/zero liability. This affects whether confession (hodaah) to one heir exempts the thief entirely or requires half-payment, and whether such confession must be directed to a specific individual to create legal effect.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 61b-62a dealing with the intersection of theft, slaughter penalties (arba v'chamishah), inheritance, and confession (hodaah b'knas). The central case involves someone who steals an animal from his father and then slaughters it (tovach), triggering the Torah (תורה)'s requirement to pay four or five times the value. When the father subsequently dies, the thief becomes a partial heir, creating a situation where he would owe payment to himself (for his inherited share) and to his siblings. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two fundamental approaches to this dilemma. The first position holds "hamishpaka amar rachmona v'lo hamishtatzoi baka"—the Torah obligates full payment but not half-payment. According to this view, when the father dies before the court judgment (hamotza b'din), the entire obligation is voided because the thief cannot be required to pay only half. The second position maintains "chamishah bakar amar rachmona v'afilu chamishah chatzoi"—the Torah requires payment of five even if it means five halves, allowing for partial payment obligations.
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 61b-62a
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.
