A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be married against her will? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate between Rav Hamnuna and Mar bar Rav Ashi turns on whether kiddushin is only a kinyan (transaction) or also involves the woman becoming miyuched (consecrated) to her husband. The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes: without rotzon to marry at all, there is no kiddushin mid'Oraisa; coercion on the ma'aseh kiddushin alone triggers afkinu rabbanan kiddushin.
Rabbi Zweig delivers a foundational shiur on Kiddushin 2a-b analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes regarding kiddushin performed under duress. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: does kiddushin consist solely of a transactional kinyan, or does it also establish an intrinsic bond in which the woman becomes miyuched (consecrated/designated exclusively) to the man? The Gemara offers two answers to why the Mishna says "ha'isha niknis" instead of "ish koneh." The first teretz explains that saying "ish koneh" would require saying "ish makneh" to cover the reverse transaction, which is inappropriate because a husband doesn't "sell" his wife. The second teretz states that "ish koneh" would imply the man can acquire her against her will (b'al korchah), which is impermissible—hence the Mishna says "isha niknis" to emphasize it must be midaita (with her knowledge/consent).
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-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.
