No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a ganav who steals on Shabbos (שבת) through zrika (throwing) escape double payment? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer in Bava Kamma 70b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment in Hilchos Geneiva 3:2. The central difficulty: the Rambam paskens akirah tzarich hanacha, which should eliminate the need for the Gemara's special case. The answer develops a fundamental yesod: kam lei bideraba minei by knas (theft) only applies when the ma'aseh mechira and issur Shabbos occur simultaneously—not just the kinyan.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of the sugya in Bava Kamma 70b dealing with the principle of kam lei bideraba minei—specifically when a thief steals on Shabbos (שבת). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone throws (zarik) a stolen animal from reshus ha-rabim into his own reshus on Shabbos, violating both the issur geneiva (theft) and the issur Shabbos (carrying from one domain to another). The question arises: since the thief violates two prohibitions simultaneously, does he receive both punishments, or does the principle of kam lei bideraba minei exempt him from the monetary payment of kefel (double payment for theft)? The Gemara's answer is that the case involves one where the buyer stipulated "lo tikneh li ad she'tanuach ba-chatzer"—the kinyan should not take effect until the object comes to rest in his courtyard. Since the kinyan of the theft and the violation of Shabbos occur at the same moment (when the object comes to rest), kam lei bideraba minei applies and he is exempt from the monetary payment.
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 70b; Rambam Hilchos Geneiva 3:2
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.
