No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use two formulations—"ha'isha niknis" and "ha'ish mekadesh"—for the same kiddushin? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: is kiddushin a kinyan (acquisition) or an issur chalah (prohibition taking effect on the woman)? This dual nature explains the language and resolves apparent contradictions in Tosfos's pircha regarding whether shaveh kesef equals kesef in kiddushin, nezikin, and eved Ivri.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the opening sugya of Masechta Kiddushin (2a-b), focusing on the dual nature of kiddushin as both a kinyan (acquisition) and an issur (prohibition). Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing the Maharsha's question on Tosfos and the Achiezer Yosef's kashya regarding why we can learn shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) equals kesef (money) in kiddushin from either eved Ivri (Jewish servant) or nezikin (damages), given that each has its own limitations. The core insight distinguishes between two entirely different applications of shaveh kesef. In nezikin and eved Ivri, shaveh kesef serves to replace an original object—you damaged tomatoes, so you must restore their value; you owned a servant, so you must provide something of value to redeem him. The question there is whether shaveh kesef can adequately replace the original object, with concerns about putting an extra burden (tircha) on the victim to convert commodities back into the original form. The Torah (תורה)'s requirement of "meitav" (best quality) in nezikin reflects this concern—the victim should receive something easily convertible to cash.
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 2a-b
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.
