No community start suggestion yet.
What distinguishes kibush yachid (individual conquest) from kibush rabbim (communal conquest), and why does Syria have some laws of Eretz Yisrael but not others? The Rambam (רמב"ם) identifies two separate issues: yishuv (Jewish settlement) and kedushah (holiness for terumah/ma'aser). Syria has kedushah but lacks the din of yishuv because Dovid HaMelech conquered it for royal revenue, not for settling the Jewish people.
This shiur undertakes a detailed analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of kibush yachid (conquest by an individual, specifically King Dovid) versus kibush rabbim (conquest by the Jewish people collectively), focusing on the unique halachic status of Syria. The shiur addresses fundamental contradictions in the Rambam's presentation and proposes that the Rambam is addressing two entirely separate legal frameworks. The shiur begins with an apparent contradiction in the Kesef Mishneh's commentary on the Rambam. In one halacha (הלכה), the Kesef Mishneh explains that kibush yachid is not considered a true kibush because it was not done "kidat rov Yisrael" (according to the majority of Israel), citing the Gemara (גמרא) in Avodah Zarah as his source. Yet in the very next halacha, the Rambam explains that Syria lacks full Eretz Yisrael status for a different reason: because it was conquered shaloh keseder (out of order—before the conquest of Canaan was complete), citing this from the Gemara in Gittin. This appears contradictory: why does the Rambam give two different explanations for the same phenomenon?
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 8a
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.
