No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't kiddushin work through kinyan chalipin? The Gemara (גמרא) rules chalipin is ineffective for kiddushin, raising Rashi (רש"י)'s cryptic comment about "lashon kinyan" versus "lashon kiddushin." The shiur also analyzes the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Geonim on orlah and revai in Chutz La'aretz, exploring Rabbeinu Chaim's approach to halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai.
This shiur examines two major sugyos from Kiddushin 2b. The primary focus is on the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that kinyan chalipin cannot create kiddushin. The opening discussion analyzes an aggadic Gemara about the esrog's unique status regarding orlah, revai, and shevi'is, where the esrog is treated as a tree for some halachos but as a vegetable for others. The shiur then turns to Tosafos (תוספות)'s complex discussion about netar revai (individual fruit trees subject to revai) versus kerem revai (vineyards subject to revai). Tosafos raises whether netar revai applies in Chutz La'aretz, suggesting two possible answers: either only kerem revai applies biblically (making netar revai rabbinic), or all agree netar revai exists rabbinically even outside of Eretz Yisrael. The practical difference (nafka mina) would be whether netar revai applies in Chutz La'aretz today, since we follow the lenient position regarding laws outside Eretz Yisrael.
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 2b
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.
