No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kesef create kiddushin for a ketana when an eved Ivri, a stronger kinyan, doesn't allow eating terumah? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal v'chomer that chuppah should create erusin, exploring whether kiddushin works through kinyan (ownership) or through creating the status of ishus (marriage relationship), with detailed analysis of Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות).
The shiur examines a fundamental question in Kiddushin 5b: the Gemara (גמרא) attempts a kal v'chomer to prove that chuppah should be able to create erusin (betrothal). The kal v'chomer argues that if kesef (money), which is not gomer (does not complete the marriage process), can create kiddushin, then chuppah, which is gomer, should certainly be able to create kiddushin. However, the Gemara faces a challenge from Ulla's teaching that a bas Yisrael married to a kohen eats terumah based on "kinyan kaspo" - the fact that he owns her through the kesef of kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig develops the Rashba's fundamental question: why didn't the Gemara bring proof from the Mishna's case of a giyores who converted while already mekudeshes, where she eats terumah immediately? The Rashba answers that this proves the eating comes not from the kinyan of kesef itself, but from being an omedes l'nisu'in (standing ready for marriage). This means a woman eats terumah not because her husband owns her like an eved, but because she is in a status of ishus - already positioned for the full marital relationship.
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 5b
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.
