A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a ganav return a stolen object after shinui koneh has occurred? Rashi (רש"י) appears to say yes, creating a tension with the din of esnan. The shiur develops a yesod that shinui koneh gives the thief the right to become owner, but returning the basis of the victim's monetary claim removes the chiyuv damim—it's not hishavah, but it prevents the din of tashlumei gezeilah from kicking in.
This shiur presents an extended analysis of the concept of shinui koneh (change in a stolen object conferring ownership on the thief) as understood by Rashi (רש"י), in contrast to the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation. The discussion centers on Bava Kamma 56a and draws extensively on perek beis of Hilchos Gezeilah. The fundamental question is raised from Rashi's language: Rashi says that shinui koneh means the ganav is not obligated to return the object ba'ayin (in kind) to the victim, but can instead pay damim (monetary compensation). Yet Rashi also indicates the ganav can choose to return the object—"v'im yahder lo ba'ayin la'divrei d'beinai elo damim meshalem, kegon semer v'asu beged." This creates an apparent contradiction: if shinui koneh means the object is not the same, how can the ganav say "harei shelcha lefanecha" and return it? And if he can return it, how can esnan (prohibited exchange items) be mutar when shinui occurs?
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 56a
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.
