No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) rules that Ashkelon requires saying "bifnei nafsha" twice before reciting terumah blessings. Tosafos (תוספות) (via Rabbeinu Tam) explains Ashkelon lacks the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael because Olei Bavel didn't conquer it, yet adds that no beis din or talmidei chachamim reside there. Why the second reason if the first already excludes it from Eretz Yisrael status?
The shiur explores a perplexing element in Tosafos (תוספות) on Gittin 2a regarding the status of Ashkelon. The Mishna rules that in Ashkelon, one must recite "bifnei nafsha" (in my own presence) twice before making a blessing on terumah, a stringency that normally applies only outside Eretz Yisrael. This raises an obvious question: pesukim in Tanach clearly indicate that Ashkelon was within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael and was actually conquered by the Jewish people. Tosafos addresses this question by bringing two distinct proofs. First, Tosafos cites a pasuk using the language "hanesharim" (that which was left over), indicating that Ashkelon was within the designated boundaries of Eretz Yisrael—land that should have been captured. Second, Tosafos brings a pasuk from Sefer Shoftim proving that they actually did conquer the land. The shiur asks: why does Tosafos need both proofs? Why not simply cite the second pasuk showing that the land was conquered?
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!
Gittin 2a
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
