A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief steals from a thief, why doesn't the second thief pay the first? The Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם) give different reasons—the pasuk versus sevara—but the Gemara's logic creates a fundamental tension with how we understand "ein bein" in Mishnayos. The shiur explores whether "ein bein" tells us things are the same (and lists exceptions), or tells us different things share one common feature.
The shiur opens with the Mishna's statement that a thief who steals from another thief does not pay keifel (double payment). The basic question is: to whom would he have paid without a pasuk? Rashi (רש"י) suggests he would have paid keifel to the ba'al (original owner). The Rambam (Perek Alef, Halacha (הלכה) Yud Zayin) explains that the second thief pays neither the first thief nor the original owner, reasoning that the first thief has no ownership—he must return the item to the ba'al, so why would the second thief owe him anything? The core tension emerges when comparing this to the Gemara (גמרא) in Sanhedrin (Kesubos Beis). The Gemara appears to say that the reason you don't pay the first thief is because of a pasuk, not just sevara. This contradicts the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reasoning that it's obvious you shouldn't pay someone who has no ownership. The Gemara's "b'shlama" formulation assumes you need a pasuk to exempt payment to the ganav, but the Gemara then asks why you also don't pay the ba'al. According to the Rambam, no pasuk should be needed at all—it's a straightforward sevara.
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 52b
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.
