A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a thief acquire ownership in something that naturally changes over time? The Gemara (גמרא) on Bava Kamma 55b debates whether a stolen calf that matures into an ox is still the same object or a new creation. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod: the thief acquires only the qualitative change—the ox-ness fit for plowing—while the original calf-material remains the owner's property, explaining why payment is calculated "kedei hashta" for the original part.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Bava Kamma 55b dealing with kinyan geneiva (a thief's acquisition) in cases of kleh v'nasa ayin (a calf that matured into an ox). The central question is whether a thief acquires ownership over an object that undergoes natural, predictable change while in his possession, and how this affects the laws of daled v'hei (fourfold and fivefold payment). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that when a thief steals a calf (kleh) and it naturally matures into an ox (ayin), he acquires ownership. The Gemara (גמרא) presents an apparent contradiction: if shinui (change) does not effect a kinyan, then the thief should pay kedei hashta (according to its current value), yet according to Beis Shammai, who hold that shinui is not koneh, the thief pays kedei bikur (according to its value at theft). How can Beis Shammai's position be reconciled with this principle?
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why does Rosh Hashanah feel oppressive if we should serve God from love, not for reward? The shiur resolves this through Rashi's apparent contradiction: we must expect God's response without demanding payment owed. True love requires knowing the beloved will reciprocate from caring, not obligation, transforming judgment day into celebration of divine relationship.
Why do we owe parents gratitude when they had children for their own fulfillment, not our benefit? The shiur establishes that we owe hakaras hatov to anyone who benefits us regardless of their motives, since nothing is owed to us in the first place. This yesod explains why Og earned merit despite evil intentions and why gratitude creates ongoing obligation rather than closing accounts.
What makes marriage fundamentally different from partnership? The Torah defines marriage as eternal oneness rather than temporary partnership, evidenced by burial together, yibum obligations, and the teaching that sins are forgiven upon marriage. This oneness transforms both spouses into a merged identity that transcends death.
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.
