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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
