A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When the Gemara (גמרא) debates whether to compare shtar kiddushin to get (requiring lishmah) or kesef kiddushin (not requiring lishmah), what is the underlying question? The shiur develops that the dispute is not about transferring specific laws between kinyanim, but about defining whether shtar kiddushin is merely a kinyan or also contains a religious element—a framework that resolves major Acharonim's questions about the hekesh havaya.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 8a's fundamental discussion of whether shtar kiddushin requires lishmah (being written "for her sake"). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two possible hekeshim (comparisons): either learn from get (which requires lishmah) that shtar kiddushin also needs lishmah, or learn from kesef kiddushin (which doesn't require lishmah) that shtar kiddushin doesn't need it. Rashi (רש"י) explains that kesef doesn't require lishmah, and the Gemara concludes we learn from get because that's the ikar din of shtar. The shiur raises a fundamental question about the meaning of "lishmah" by kesef. What would it even mean for kesef to require lishmah? The coin itself cannot be written "for her sake"—you're being mekadesh her with the monetary value, not with any inscription on the coin. This creates a conceptual problem: if kesef lishmah makes no sense whatsoever, how could the Gemara have initially suggested learning that shtar doesn't need lishmah from the fact that kesef doesn't need it? And conversely, if lishmah is fundamentally inapplicable to kesef, how can the Gemara's conclusion—that we should reverse the hekesh and say shtar needs lishmah—be meaningful?
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 8a
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.
