A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does marriage by shtar (document) require the document to be worth a pruta? The shiur develops the Ran's approach that shtar kiddushin is fundamentally an exchange—not merely a legal declaration—meaning it must have some value but less than a pruta suffices. This contrasts with gittin, where the document itself creates the divorce without requiring monetary value.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental nature of kiddushei shtar (marriage via document) through an in-depth examination of Kiddushin 3a-b and the machlokes Rishonim regarding whether the shtar must contain a shever pruta (minimum monetary value). The shiur opens by presenting three positions among the Rishonim: (1) mechubar (attached property) is invalid for shtar kiddushin but valid for kesef kiddushin (the Ran's first approach); (2) mechubar is invalid for both shtar and kesef kiddushin; (3) the Rashba in one teshuva (תשובה) holds mechubar is valid even for shtar kiddushin. The Gaon in siman 32 brings proof from a Tosefta that marriage with yerek idachas (vegetables from orlah) would be invalid only because they're assur b'hana'ah, implying that if permitted, even shtar kiddushin with mechubar would be valid.
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 3a-b
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.
