No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a thief face double liability for some secondary damages but not others? The Ketzos HaChoshen's analysis reveals that liability depends on whether the thief still has an obligation of hashavah when committing the second act. When no return obligation exists, breaking stolen property creates no new liability since the object was already considered lost to its owner.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Sanhedrin 72a through the lens of the Ketzos HaChoshen, focusing on complex questions of liability when a thief commits multiple acts of damage. Rabbi Zweig begins by reviewing previous discussions about the fundamental machloket (dispute) between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban (רמב"ן) regarding when a ganav (thief) acquires ownership of stolen property. The Baal HaMaor maintains that by yesh lo damim (when the owner has not given up hope), Rava holds the thief never acquires anything, while by ein lo damim (when the owner has despaired), the thief does acquire ownership. The Ramban challenges this position, arguing that if originally there was no kinyan at all, how could the thief possibly acquire ownership when vehashiv (the obligation to return) ceases to apply? The shiur examines Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that acquisition may require the stolen object to be in the thief's reshus at the time of despair, suggesting multiple approaches to when kinyan takes effect. Rabbi Zweig analyzes whether the act of theft itself creates any rights, or whether acquisition only occurs after the obligation to return is removed. This leads to a detailed exploration of the relationship between the Torah (תורה)'s commandment of vehashiv es hagezeilah and the mechanics of kinyan in theft cases.
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.
