A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the Gemara (גמרא) learn that marriage can be enacted through kesef (money)? The shiur analyzes the kal v'chomer from Amah Ivriyah, showing that Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) understand its structure fundamentally differently—one focusing on the strength of the kinyan, the other on the difficulty of creating the relationship. Each approach yields distinct readings of the Gemara's challenges and answers.
Rabbi Zweig examines the sugya on Kiddushin 4b that learns kinyan kesef (marriage through money) from a kal v'chomer involving an Amah Ivriyah (Hebrew maidservant). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a kal v'chomer: If an Amah Ivriyah, who is not acquired through biya (relations), is acquired through kesef, then an isha (woman), who is acquired through biya, should certainly be acquired through kesef. The shiur explores two fundamentally different approaches to understanding this kal v'chomer. The first approach, attributed to the straightforward reading, understands that we are proving that kesef is a stronger kinyan than biya. Since kesef works by Amah Ivriyah (where biya does not work), this shows that kesef is the more powerful mode of acquisition. Therefore, by an isha, where biya already works, kesef should certainly work. This reading focuses on the relative strength of the kinyanim themselves.
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 4b
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.
