A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a vessel worth less than a pruta be used for kiddushin or hodaah? The Rashba argues that a kli's functional value always exceeds a pruta, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes between monetary value and the claim for melacha. This fundamental dispute reshapes how we understand shaveh kesef and the nature of financial versus functional claims in halacha (הלכה).
The shiur opens by examining a fundamental question in the laws of kiddushin and modeh b'miktzas: can a vessel (kli) worth less than a shaveh pruta serve as valid currency? The Rashba in hilchos shaveh kesef assumes that a kli pachas mishaveh pruta works for kiddushin. The Sma then raises a difficulty: if this is true, why does the Gemara (גמרא) exclude chalifin from kiddushin on the grounds that chalifin works with less than a shaveh pruta, and a woman does not make herself makneh (transfer ownership) for less than a shaveh pruta? If every kli is inherently worth more than a shaveh pruta (according to the Rashba), then chalifin, which requires a kli, should work. The Nesivos answers that when two parties are holding the kli together, it loses its enhanced value. The Meshiv Davar adds that one must have shelita (control) over at least three tefachim of the kli, and three tefachim of a kli has the hashavas (value) of a full kli, which should still exceed a shaveh pruta according to the Rashba. This leaves the original question unresolved.
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 2a
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.
