A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need to exclude chalipin (barter) as a valid form of kiddushin when the Mishna already lists only three? Rashi (רש"י) explains that chuppah works because the father's agreement (gemirat da'at) is itself a valid kinyan, which opens the possibility that chalipin—also based on agreement—might work too. This reading reveals fundamental yesodot about what constitutes a kinyan in kiddushin and why the father can be a party to the ritual.
The shiur explores a difficult Rashi (רש"י) on Kiddushin 2b that appears to make little sense on its surface. The Gemara (גמרא) states that according to our position we exclude chuppah (from requiring a source), while according to Rav Huna we exclude chalipin (barter/exchange). Rashi comments that chalipin doesn't work for kiddushin, but his language is extremely difficult to understand—he speaks about the "lashon" (language) of chalipin versus kiddushin, when the discussion appears to be about the kinyan itself, not the language used. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing the fundamental question: Why does the Gemara need to exclude chalipin at all? If the Mishna lists only three ways to acquire a wife (kesef, shtar, and bi'ah), why would anyone think chalipin might work? The answer must be that there is no reason to exclude it—chalipin is so obviously inappropriate that it doesn't merit discussion. Unlike kesef and shtar, which are "religious ceremonies" or rituals specific to creating a halachic relationship, chalipin is merely a business transaction, a standard kinyan used in commercial matters. It has no place in the ritual 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 2b
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.
