No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) learn kiddushin from both the pasuk of "yotzei chinam ein kesef" (regarding an amah ivriyah) and from "ki yikach ish ishah"? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s fundamental distinction: yotzei chinam teaches kinyan (ownership rights that prevent hefkeirus), while ki yikach teaches kedushas eirusin (creating an eshes ish with full issur ervah). Kesef accomplishes both dimensions of marriage.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 4b, focusing on a fundamental question in the structure of kiddushin: how we derive that kesef (money) creates a valid marriage, and what exactly that kesef accomplishes. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a kal vachomer from amah ivriyah: just as she goes free with money, so too marriage can be created with money. But this raises multiple questions about the relationship between different pesukim and the nature of kiddushin itself. The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the Gemara's havamina that a woman could give a man money to create kiddushin. Rashi explains that since we know kesef works for kiddushin, we might think it works regardless of which direction the money flows. However, the pasuk "ein kesef lad'on hazeh" teaches that the money must go to the father (by a naarah), not to the previous master. Tosafos (תוספות) questions Rashi's formulation: if the pasuk is discussing a naarah whose father receives the money, how could the Gemara's havamina involve the woman giving money to the man? Tosafos answers that the Gemara's discussion is actually lav davka; the real point is about who receives the money and who makes the declaration.
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 4b
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.
