A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a thief steals a sheep (teleh) and it matures into a ram (ayil), then he slaughters it, does he pay the fourfold penalty for the ram or the sheep? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes whether the natural growth (shnei) creates kinyan for the thief. Rashi (רש"י) offers a revolutionary reading: even when shnei doesn't create kinyan, the thief is exempt from the penalty because "this is not what he stole"—a principle both Rabbi Eloi and Rav Chanina accept, though they apply it differently.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kama 65b concerning the laws of theft when the stolen object undergoes a natural change (shnei). The central case involves a thief who steals a lamb (teleh) which then matures into a ram (ayil) before being slaughtered. The fundamental question is whether the thief must pay the fourfold penalty (arba v'chamishah) and, if so, whether the calculation is based on the value at the time of theft (kimikara) or at the time of slaughter (ki'hashta). Rabbi Eloi and Rav Chanina engage in a dispute over whether shnei koneh—whether the natural change in the animal creates a kinyan (acquisition) for the thief. The basic understanding of their positions seems straightforward: Rabbi Eloi holds that shnei does create kinyan, while the Braisa holds it does not. When shnei creates kinyan, the object now belongs to the thief, and he would be exempt from the arba v'chamishah penalty since he is slaughtering his own animal. When shnei does not create kinyan, the animal still belongs to the victim, suggesting the thief should be liable.
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 Kama 65b
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.
