No community start suggestion yet.
Why can kinyan kesef create kiddushin when it's a weaker acquisition than eved ivri, whose kinyan doesn't allow eating terumah? The shiur works through multiple approaches: perhaps an arusah eats only because of the zikah to future nisu'in (not the erusin itself), or because nisu'in creates an eternal connection (le'olam). The Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer from kesef to chuppah then breaks down into a complex tzad hashaveh requiring kesef, biyah, and shtar.
Rabbi Zweig opens by revisiting a complex Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 5a that analyzes how different kinyanim (forms of acquisition) work for kiddushin (marriage). The fundamental question is why kinyan kesef creates kiddushin when, in the hierarchy of kinyanim, a wife acquired through kesef should be considered a lesser acquisition than an eved ivri (Hebrew servant) or even a toshav sacher (hired laborer), neither of whom eats terumah despite their stronger kinyan status. The shiur first addresses why the Gemara needs the pasuk of "ki yikneh nefesh kinyan kaspo" to teach that an arusah (betrothed woman) eats terumah. The question is particularly acute given that in the structure of Masechta Kiddushin itself—which progresses from kinyan isha to eved to eved ivri to eved kena'ani to property—the wife represents a lesser acquisition in pure kinyan terms. She doesn't provide ma'aseh yadayim (wages of her labor) by Torah (תורה) law, unlike an eved. How then can she eat terumah based on kinyan kesef when toshav sacher, who has a stronger kinyan relationship with his employer, cannot eat?
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.
