A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use feminine language ("three ways") when Torah (תורה) typically uses masculine? The Gemara (גמרא) explains that "derech" (way) is feminine—unlike war (masculine activity), Torah itself is a chefetz (object) independent of its learners. The shiur explores how this linguistic analysis connects to the three methods of kiddushin and whether chuppah or chalipah should be included.
This shiur analyzes the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 2a-b, which discusses why the Mishna states "ishah niknas b'shalosh derochim" (a woman is acquired in three ways) using feminine language when Torah (תורה) generally uses masculine. The Gemara explains that the word "derech" is feminine, citing the pasuk "Torat Hashem (ה׳) temimah" which uses feminine language for Torah. However, the Gemara also finds instances where "derech" appears in masculine form, such as in the context of war ("yotzer lecha derech"). Tosfos asks a fundamental question: if the entire Torah is written in masculine language ("kol haTorah kulah b'lashon zachor"), why use feminine here? The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between the chefetz (object) and the gavra (person). Torah itself is an independent entity—a system of divine truths that exists regardless of who studies it. Therefore, when referring to Torah as an object, feminine language is appropriate. In contrast, war is not an independent chefetz but rather an activity performed by men, hence it takes masculine language.
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!
Kiddushin 2a-b
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.
