A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't "hareini balech" (I am your husband) work as a valid formula for kiddushin, when the end result seems identical to "harei at mekudeshes li"? The shiur works through Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding that the means of achieving kiddushin matter, not just the result—the man must "take" the woman (ki yikach), not position himself as taken. This leads to a broader exploration of borderline kiddushin language and the tension between requiring explicit statement versus accepting implied intent.
This shiur on Kiddushin 5b-6a examines Rashi (רש"י)'s position on invalid formulations of kiddushin, particularly focusing on the expression "hareini balech" (I am your husband) and similar language. Rabbi Zweig begins by probing why this formulation should be invalid according to Rashi, who considers it a "chisaron" (deficiency) rather than completely ineffective. The fundamental question is: if the end result is identical to "harei at mekudeshes li" (you are betrothed to me)—namely, that he owns her—why should the formulation matter? The shiur develops the understanding that kiddushin requires not just the correct result but the correct process. The Torah (תורה)'s language "ki yikach ish ishah" (when a man takes a woman) establishes that the man must actively acquire the woman, not present himself as being acquired by her. Even though "hareini balech" might achieve the same legal relationship, the mechanism described by the language is backwards—it positions the man as moving toward the woman or offering himself, rather than taking her. This explains why Rashi considers it deficient: the ma'aseh (action) described doesn't match the required structure of kiddushin, even if the intended result is correct.
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-6a
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.
