No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief steals an animal that changes value (fattens or loses weight) before slaughtering it, what determines the double payment (kefel)—the value at the time of theft or at judgment? The shiur builds a fundamental chakira: is kefel a new, independent obligation triggered by withholding stolen property, or is it merely a continuation and penalty for the original act of theft? This distinction reframes how we calculate kefel when the stolen object's value fluctuates.
This shiur explores a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 65a concerning the calculation of kefel (double payment) and the four-or-five-fold payment (arba v'chamisha) when a stolen animal's value changes between the time of theft and the time of slaughter or sale. The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav's position that keren (principal) is paid according to the value at the time of theft (k'ein sheganav), while the double payment and four-or-five-fold payments are calculated according to the value at the time of judgment (k'shas ha'omed badin). The Gemara initially assumes Rav is discussing cases where an animal fattens and is then slaughtered (kucha v'hishmina) or is slaughtered and then fattens (hishmina v'kucha), situations where the thief directly caused the change in value. In both these cases, everyone agrees the entire payment—including kefel—is calculated at the time of judgment. The Gemara then asks: if that's the case, what is Rav's novel teaching? The Gemara answers that Rav is actually discussing a case where the value changed on its own through market forces—it was originally worth four and dropped to one (yukir v'zul).
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 65a
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.
