No community start suggestion yet.
Does a yad (implied expression) in kiddushin constitute precise communication or merely a general indication of intent? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם): the Ran holds that yad is true communication but must be obvious for kiddushin's ma'aseh requirement, while the Rambam holds yad is imprecise—insufficient to distinguish "I am marrying you" from "Do you want to marry me?" This debate reframes the entire sugya of "ve'at" in kiddushin.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s question of whether yesh yad l'kidushin (whether implied language works for kiddushin), focusing on the fundamental dispute between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) in understanding both the case and the underlying principles. The Gemara discusses a case where someone says to woman A "harei at mekudeshes li" (behold you are betrothed to me) and then says "ve'at" to woman B. The question is whether woman B becomes betrothed through this implied language (yad). The Ran understands this as a straightforward case where the man gave money to woman A and said "ve'at" to woman B who was observing. The question is whether the yad—the implied intention—creates kiddushin for woman B.
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!
Nedarim (specific daf unclear)
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.
