A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes using "charufasi" (language from Yehuda meaning betrothed woman) in other regions? The Gemara (גמרא)'s tension: if it's loshen hakodesh from the pasuk, why does it only work in Yehuda where people speak that way? The shiur develops the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on whether kedushin language must describe marriage itself or merely require marriage as a prerequisite.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of what language is valid for creating kiddushin (betrothal). The central case is whether saying "charufasi" (a term used in Yehuda meaning "my betrothed one") can effect kiddushin in other regions where this term is not commonly used. The Gemara presents a fundamental tension: The word "charufa" appears in the Torah (תורה)'s discussion of shifcha charufa (a maidservant betrothed to someone), which according to some opinions requires kiddushin. This would suggest it's loshen hakodesh (Biblical Hebrew) that should work universally. Yet the Gemara limits its validity to Yehuda, where people actually use this language. The question is: if we have a source in the pasuk, why should we need people to speak that way? And conversely, if it's only valid where people speak that way (Yehuda), how can it work elsewhere - "Yehuda hav'yaruba d'alma" (Yehuda is not the majority of the world)?
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 6a
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.
