A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can the same instrument that creates kiddushin also dissolve it? The shiur analyzes ein kategor naseh sanegor in the context of kiddushin, distinguishing between kinyan-based shtar (IOU notes) and religious documents. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to shtar hadama is defended: when a shtar creates a new obligation (not evidencing a preexisting one), it's called shtar, not kesef.
The shiur continues analysis of Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the principle of ein kategor naseh sanegor—that something which prosecutes cannot become a defender. Rabbi Zweig addresses why the Gemara (גמרא) entertained learning kinyan shtar from a kal vachomer if ein kategor naseh sanegor should have immediately disqualified this approach, since shtar works for get and therefore shouldn't work for kiddushin. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction through Tosfos between two types of transactions: (1) retracing one's steps versus (2) creating and destroying. By amah ivriah, when she goes free with kesef, this represents a retracing—the master originally paid kesef to acquire her, so returning kesef reverses the transaction. Ein kategor naseh sanegor doesn't apply to retracing because the same instrument naturally undoes what it did. By kiddushin, however, shtar creates the marriage bond, and using the same instrument to dissolve it would mean one thing both creates and destroys a reality—which is logically impossible.
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 5a
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.
