No community start suggestion yet.
If thieves acquire ownership through kim lei d'rav mineh (being liable for death when breaking in), why would they ever owe kefel payments? Tosafot's approach distinguishes between machteret (tunneling) which triggers kim lei, and other theft methods like rooftop entry which require warning first. This preserves kefel liability in most cases while maintaining the death-exempts-payment principle.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Sanhedrin 72a, focusing on the complex interplay between theft, ownership acquisition (kinyan), and payment obligations. The discussion centers on a Tosafot that questions a statement of Rav regarding when a thief becomes exempt from returning stolen goods. The Gemara discusses the principle that when one thief steals from another thief, the second thief does not pay double payment (kefel) to the first thief, since it is considered stealing 'from the house of the thief' rather than 'from the house of the owner.' Rav states that this only applies after the original owner has given up hope (yiush), but before yiush, the first thief has not yet acquired the stolen item and thus the second thief would be liable for kefel.
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.
