No community start suggestion yet.
Does money given to the father constitute part of the ma'aseh kiddushin itself, or merely remove an impediment to marriage? The shiur resolves contradictions between 4b and 5b regarding nosan hu v'amra hu by distinguishing whether the monetary transfer is the kiddushin act or just removes the father's ownership. By adam chashuv, passive acceptance creates hana but is not itself a ma'aseh kiddushin—only his amira effects kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question about the nature of kiddushin with kesef (monetary betrothal): is the giving of money to the father an integral part of the ma'aseh kiddushin, or is it merely a prerequisite that removes the father's ownership, clearing the way for a separate act of kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא) on daf 4b presents a contradiction regarding nosan hu v'amra hu (he gave and she said "harei ani mekudeshes lach"). The mishna's reisha implies it's invalid, while the seifa suggests it might be valid. Tosafos (תוספות) explains that the seifa refers to an adam chashuv (important person), where nosan hu v'amra hu would be effective. However, this raises two difficulties: first, with an adam chashuv, it should be called nosan hu (he gave), not nosen hu (she gave), since his acceptance itself confers benefit. Second, if nosen hu by adam chashuv has a din of nosan hu, then nosan hu v'amra hu should work there as well, creating at least a safek kiddushin.
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.
