No community start suggestion yet.
Why is saying "Hareini ishech" (I am your husband) invalid for kiddushin, even though it accurately describes the result of marriage? The shiur examines the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement that the man must express his act of acquiring the woman—not merely describe the resulting status. Rabbeinu Yerucham's approach distinguishes between accurate description and procedural sufficiency, exploring whether kiddushin operates like kinyan karka (where one becomes the owner) or kinyan metaltelin (where property enters one's domain).
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of "yadayim she'ein morichos"—expressions that do not properly convey kiddushin. The central case is "Hareini ishech" (I am your husband), which the Gemara rules is invalid for effecting kiddushin, even with a kesef (money) component that would normally validate the transaction. The shiur presents multiple approaches to understanding why this formula fails. Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that "Hareini ishech" is fundamentally perverted—it reverses the proper relationship by suggesting the woman owns the man rather than the man acquiring the woman. Just as marriage gives a man rights (such as his wife's ability to eat terumah), saying "I am your husband" implies the woman is conferring status on the man, which inverts the Torah (תורה)'s structure of kiddushin.
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.
