No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't Rabbi Yochanan learn kiddushin from "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah" rather than from "ba'ulat ba'al"? The shiur develops the fundamental chakira whether kiddushei kesef creates only monetary ownership (d'oraisa) while erusin status remains d'rabanan, versus Rashi (רש"י)'s position that kiddushin is fully d'oraisa. The Geonim's reading—that kesef creates real kinyan but not ervah until biah—resolves the Gemara (גמרא)'s language of "kadesh v'hadar ba'al" and explains why Chachamim can be mafkir kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 9b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of why Rabbi Yochanan learns that a ba'al enters through bi'ah from "ba'ulat ba'al" rather than from the pasuk "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah." The Gemara explains that if we learned from "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah," we would require kadesh v'hadar ba'al—first kiddushin and then bi'ah. The Gemara asks how na'arah me'orasa would then be possible, since if kadesh v'lo ba'al produces nothing, there would be no din of na'arah me'orasa. The Gemara answers that na'arah me'orasa works through shtar. Rabbi Zweig notes a striking inconsistency in Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation. Rashi writes that without bi'ah, kesef would accomplish nothing—"u'v'lo bi'ah lo mekadesh." Yet the Gemara's language consistently uses "kadesh v'hadar ba'al" (kiddushin and then bi'ah), not "nasan kesef v'hadar ba'al" (gave money and then bi'ah). This suggests that kiddushin itself accomplishes something real, even before bi'ah. Furthermore, the Gemara states "i kadesh v'lo ba'al lav klum hu," using the term "kadesh," which implies that kiddushin created some level of status, not that it was nothing at all.
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 9b
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.
