No community start suggestion yet.
When a stolen animal (klei) gives birth (becomes ayin), who owns the klei and who owns the ayin? The shiur contrasts three views: Rashi (רש"י) holds the ganav owns only the ayin while the nignav retains the klei; the Rosh holds the ganav owns both through shinui Hashem (ה׳); the Rambam (רמב"ם) holds the ganav owns the ayin and this kinyan extends to the klei as well, creating a distinct din between hilchos geneivah and gezeilah regarding when keifel is paid.
This shiur analyzes Bava Kamma 55b, focusing on the fundamental dispute among the Rishonim concerning the nature of ownership when a stolen pregnant animal gives birth. The central question is whether the ganav (thief) acquires only the ayin (the offspring) or also retains ownership of the klei (the original stolen vessel/animal). The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position, which holds that the ganav is koneh (acquires ownership) only of the ayin, while the klei remains the property of the nignav (the victim). According to this understanding, since the nignav still owns the klei, the ganav must pay keren (principal) plus the increased value of the animal. This creates what the Shitah Mekubetzes considers a difficult question: if the klei still belongs to the nignav, how can the ganav be required to pay anything beyond returning the klei itself?
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 55b
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.
