A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does marriage require explicit language of acquisition (kinyan), or is language of husband-wife relationship (ishish) sufficient? The shiur contrasts three approaches: the Vilna Gaon holds that ishish language alone works when marriage context is clear; the Beis Shmuel requires actual kinyan intent; and the Rambam (רמב"ם) suggests the Gemara (גמרא)'s uncertainty is whether pre-Sinai marriage language suffices post-Sinai.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b's discussion of various formulations used to effect kiddushin, exploring a fundamental debate about whether explicit language of acquisition (kinyan) is required or whether language expressing the husband-wife relationship (ishish) suffices. The Gemara (גמרא) presents three categories of language: (1) "harei at mekudeshes li" - explicit kiddushin language combining both kinyan and ishish elements; (2) "harei at ishti/arusasi/kenuyah li" - language describing the result of kiddushin without the process; and (3) "harei at miyuchedes/tzalosee/negdosee" - language describing only the man-woman relationship without any acquisition connotation. The Gemara asks "mino yada" (how does she know?) on certain formulations, questioning whether the woman understood this as creating kiddushin rather than merely discussing future marriage or living arrangements. Two answers are offered: "asukim b'oso inyan" (they were engaged in discussing that matter - marriage) or that she can testify she understood it as kiddushin.
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 5b
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why is the third book called simply 'And He called' and why did only Moshe hear God's voice? The shiur distinguishes between dibur (articulated speech) and kol (voice) - where kol represents projecting one's essence rather than communicating words. In Vayikra, God projects His actual presence to Moshe, and the korban system becomes our imperfect way of projecting ourselves back to Him.
Why did God command sacrifices of sheep, goats, and cattle specifically? The Rambam argues they countered idolatrous worship of these animals, while the Ramban objects that sacrifices existed before idolatry and serve as substitutes for the sinner. The shiur synthesizes both views: korbanot redirect the intense emotional connection idolaters felt toward these animals into genuine service of God.
If God is perfect and lacks nothing, why does He need our service, and how can we be rewarded for doing something that doesn't benefit Him? A Midrash about God's incomplete garden reveals that Hashem created a genuine need for our varied mitzvahs as the foundation of existence itself. This enables us to be independent beings worthy of reward rather than mere extensions of the Divine.
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.
