No community start suggestion yet.
Is kesef kiddushin a kinyan (acquisition) or merely a religious ritual? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether it matters who gives the money and who says the formula. Rashi (רש"י)'s first approach treats kesef as a ritual showing mutual commitment—not a transfer of ownership—making the speaker's role the crucial factor, not the giver of the money.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b, which presents the Mishna's basic formulation of kiddushin through kesef (money): "Nasan la kesef o sheveh kesef, v'amar lo harei at mekudeshes li"—he gave her money or its equivalent and said, "You are betrothed to me." The Gemara (גמרא) explores a fundamental question: what is the nature of the kesef in kiddushin? Is it a kinyan (legal acquisition mechanism) or a religious ritual? The Braisa presents two cases that appear contradictory. The Reisha states that if he gives money and he makes the declaration, she is mekudeshes. The Seifa states that if she gives money and she makes the declaration, she is not mekudeshes. The Gemara initially suggests "kedai nazbah"—the Seifa is merely amplifying the Reisha—but rejects this as inappropriate when the Seifa contradicts the Reisha. The real question emerges: what about the intermediate case of "nasan hu v'omrah hi" (he gives the money but she makes the declaration)?
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.
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.
