No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) place the law of a slave's liability for theft in Hilchos Geneivah rather than in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon? The shiur develops a fundamental understanding: the slave becomes liable for kefel (double payment) only upon freedom, not at the time of the act, because the owner receives the kinyan geneivah. This structure reveals that the takanas chachamim was designed to protect the victim, not the owner.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of a slave's liability for theft and damages, examining a series of halachos across Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik and Hilchos Geneivah. Rabbi Zweig opens by identifying a striking pattern: in three separate halachos (Chovel u'Mazik 4:21, Geneivah 1:7, and Geneivah 1:9), the Rambam rules that when a slave causes damage or commits theft, the owner is initially exempt (patur) due to the principle of shema yachdo tenei—lest people falsely claim the owner instructed them—and the slave becomes liable (chayav) to pay upon gaining freedom. Yet the language the Rambam uses varies significantly across these three cases, raising fundamental questions about the nature of the obligation. The shiur focuses particularly on Hilchos Geneivah 1:9, where the Rambam states that a slave who steals is exempt from payment while enslaved, and the owner is also exempt because he has no ability to oversee everything the slave does, citing the Mishna in Yadayim. The shiur asks: why does the Rambam bring this halacha (הלכה) in Hilchos Geneivah rather than earlier in Hilchos Nizkei Mamon? Furthermore, what is the havanah (assumption) that would require the Gemara (גמרא) to teach us the slave is exempt—given that standard hekesh principles exclude adam (a person) from automatic liability for a slave's actions?
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 3b-4a
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
