No community start suggestion yet.
Does a thief truly acquire stolen goods through kinyan gezeilah, or do they remain the victim's property? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rav and Rava on Sanhedrin 72a, showing how their dispute over kim li diRabanan reveals fundamentally different conceptions of theft-based acquisition.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Sanhedrin 72a delves into the fundamental question of kinyan gezeilah (acquisition through theft) and its interaction with kim li diRabanan. The discussion centers on a dispute between Rav and Rava regarding a thief who enters a house (machteres) and steals items. Rav maintains that when a thief steals and the stolen object is subsequently destroyed, he is exempt (patur) from payment obligations due to kim li diRabanan - since he faces capital punishment for the theft, he cannot simultaneously be obligated for monetary compensation. The phrase 'b'dam kanah' (he acquires through his blood/life) suggests the thief truly acquires the stolen goods through kinyan gezeilah, but with an obligation to return them.
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!
Sanhedrin 72a
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.
