No community start suggestion yet.
Does a thief acquire any ownership rights in stolen property? The Baal HaMaor's interpretation suggests that even Rava, who normally rejects kinyan geneivah, agrees that when kimli d'rabinei applies (ein ladam cases), the ganav does acquire ownership. The shiur works through how this principle could create positive ownership rights rather than merely removing return obligations.
This shiur examines a complex passage in Sanhedrin 72a through the lens of the Baal HaMaor's commentary, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rav and Rava regarding kinyan geneivah - whether a thief acquires any ownership rights in stolen property. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone steals an object from the domain of the original owner and then breaks it outside that domain. The Baal HaMaor raises a fundamental question from the case of ta'arov ishashya in Bava Metzia, where Rava rules that if someone steals a barrel worth one dinar that appreciates to four dinars and then breaks it, he is liable for the full four dinars. This shows that breaking something creates a new liability even after the theft. The Baal HaMaor asks why this principle shouldn't apply equally to breaking an object outside the original owner's domain - there should be liability even without mokim lede'aminai.
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.
