For Bava Kamma 63a-b we continue our study of the thief who pays כפל and the Shomer Chinam who swore the object was stolen & then witnesses testified that the Shomer himself stole the object. In both cases there is a payment of כפל. But are these two presented by the Torah in two sections, or is the section dedicated exclusively to the case of the Shomer & the classical thief is derived from the Shomer with a Kal VaChomer? The sugya rejects the latter option by virtue of the rule of דיו; after all the Shomer pays if & when he takes a false oath. How then can we derive the classical גנב who took no oath at all? Furthermore, if the entire Parsha refers to the Shomer scenario why the necessity for two verses addressing the very same case?
To contact us with any comments, suggestions or requests, please click here
YUTorah ® Online is made possible by the generosity of Marcos and Adina Katz and is coordinated by Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future . It offers more than 240,000 shiurim via webcast in audio, video and text formats by our Roshei Yeshiva and other YU luminaries. The opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author or lecturer and should not be attributed to Yeshiva University.
0 comments Leave a Comment