A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the kal vachomer work to prove that shtair can be used for kiddushin? The shiur explores whether the argument runs from kesef to shtair (both as kinyanim) or from gittin to kiddushin, and whether gittin functions as a hachnah (acquisition) or as an independent instrumentality of divorce. This determines how to read the Gemara (גמרא)'s subsequent hekesh and the principle of kateigor na'aseh saneigor.
The shiur conducts a close analysis of Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s attempt to prove through a kal vachomer that shtair (a document) can effect kiddushin. The central question is: what is the structure of this kal vachomer, and what does it reveal about the underlying nature of kiddushin and gittin? Rabbi Zweig presents two possible ways to understand the kal vachomer. The first approach, attributed to Rashi (רש"י), is that the argument runs from kesef to shtair: since kesef works for kiddushin, and shtair has advantages over kesef (e.g., you can write on paper but not on metal), kal vachomer shtair should also work. According to this reading, the Gemara assumes from the outset that kiddushin is a kinyan (an acquisition), and the question is whether shtair—like kesef—can serve as a vehicle for that kinyan. Rashi's approach implies that the Gemara is comparing two modes of kinyan, not two institutions (marriage and divorce).
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 5a
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.
