A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does kim li d'rabbanan apply when a tunneling thief escapes without being caught? Rashi (רש"י) holds it's a case of chayav mishah shogeg where the principle still exempts from payment even without actual punishment. The Yad Ramah argues this creates two fundamentally different applications of kim li d'rabbanan - one for beis din cases and another for situations outside beis din.
This shiur delves into a crucial machloket in the Mishna between Rashi (רש"י) and the Yad Ramah regarding the principle of kim li d'rabbanan as applied to the case of ba b'machteret (one who comes through tunneling to steal). The core dispute centers on whether this case involves chayav mishah shogeg (liable for inadvertent death penalty) or chayav mishah mezidin (liable for intentional death penalty). Rashi maintains that in the case of ein lo damim (when there's no liability for damages), if the thief breaks in and escapes, he is patur (exempt) from payment. According to Rashi, this represents chayav mishah shogeg, and we learn from the principle of kim li d'rabbanan that even when the punishment isn't actually carried out, the exemption still applies. This is based on the precedent of tanu d'bei cheska.
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.
