No community start suggestion yet.
If burning a shtar creates no chiyuv keren because of din garmi, why should there be kefel? The shiur analyzes whether shtaros have shaveh kesef and whether kefel applies when there's no shaveh for the paper itself. Tosfos answers that although one is patur midin garmi because the chov can theoretically be resurrected, the shtar itself has market value and therefore kefel applies.
The shiur examines Bava Kamma 62b, focusing on whether the obligation of kefel (double payment) applies to stolen shtaros (promissory notes). The fundamental question arises from a tension in the Gemara (גמרא): if burning someone's shtar creates no obligation to pay keren (principal) because of the principle of lo dondin dinim d'garmi (we don't adjudicate indirect damages), why should there be any obligation of kefel? The shiur explores multiple approaches to understanding Tosfos's question. One possibility is that kefel, as one of the avos nezikin (primary categories of damages), requires a foundation in nezikin. If there's no chiyuv in the underlying din of nezikin, perhaps there can be no kefel. Another approach suggests that kefel may only apply where there is shaveh kesef—tangible monetary value—in the object stolen.
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 62b
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.
