A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a stolen object changes in value, does the thief pay what it was worth when stolen, or when returned? The Gemara (גמרא) applies kol hagazlan misham k'shas hagazeilah to yukra v'zula (value fluctuation) as well as shinui (physical change). The shiur argues that tashlum gezeilah is not a chiyuv from the ma'aseh gezeilah itself, but rather a din of hashavah enforced by beis din when the object cannot be returned.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the laws of theft and restitution: what is the basis of the principle kol hagazlan misham k'shas hagazeilah (we evaluate the stolen object at the time of theft)? The discussion centers on Bava Kamma 55a and explores a Tosfos that distinguishes between shinui (physical transformation of the stolen object) and yukra v'zula (change in monetary value). The Gemara (גמרא) brings a case from Rav dealing with yukra v'zula—an object worth four at the time of theft but only one at the time of reckoning. Tosfos asks: why do we need Rav's statement when the Mishna already teaches this principle through the case of shinui? Tosfos initially suggests that by shinui, the reason is obvious—you stole wood, not an eye, so you return wood. But by yukra v'zula, where it's the same object, one might think you should pay based on current value. The Gemara's extension to yukra v'zula therefore teaches that tashlum is measured k'shas hagazeilah even when the physical object remains unchanged.
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 55a
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.
