No community start suggestion yet.
Does yiush work through kinyan geneiva (like shinui), or is it independent like aveida? The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 56b presents Rava arguing yiush operates via kinyan geneiva (which the issur delays), while Rav Yosef holds kinyan geneiva prevents yiush from working since one cannot be me'ayeish on an obligation. The Rosh's position—that midrabanan you can hold the object but lack full kinyan—depends on whether we follow Rava's mechanism or Rav Yosef's reasoning.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding how yiush (despair) functions in the laws of gezeila (theft). The Gemara (גמרא) in Bava Kamma 56b presents the question of whether yiush allows the thief to acquire the stolen object, and if so, whether this works on a Torah (תורה) level (midoraisa) or rabbinically (midrabanan). The shiur opens by establishing that shinui (physical change) clearly works to transfer ownership because once the object is no longer the same, the chiyuv hashava (obligation to return) no longer applies, allowing the kinyan geneiva (the thief's inherent acquisition) to take effect. The question is whether yiush operates through the same mechanism—removing the chiyuv hashava and activating the underlying kinyan geneiva—or through an entirely different mechanism, similar to how yiush works by aveida (lost objects).
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 56b
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.
