A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) present two different kal vachomers to prove chuppah should effect erusin—one from the fact that chuppah is mechol and one from the fact that chuppah is gomer? The first kal vachomer teaches that erusin is fundamentally a kinyan of ishus (relationship), not merely a standard kinyan. The second kal vachomer raises Tosafos (תוספות)'s difficulty: how can you learn chuppah creates erusin independently when chuppah only works after kesef?
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s two attempts to prove through kal vachomer that chuppah should be able to effect erusin. The first kal vachomer argues from kesef she'eino mechol—kesef does not permit an arussa bas Yisrael to eat terumah, while chuppah does. Since kesef creates erusin, chuppah, which has the additional power of mechol, should surely create erusin. The Gemara rejects this because the very kinyan of kesef itself is mechol according to Ulla, so there is no advantage to chuppah in this regard. Rabbi Zweig addresses a fundamental question: why does the Gemara include this first, flawed kal vachomer at all? We already know from Ulla in other places in Shas that an arussa eats terumah mid'rabbanan. The shiur could have simply started with the correct kal vachomer. The answer reveals a profound insight into the nature of erusin: the Gemara is teaching that erusin is not merely a standard kinyan governed by hilchos kinyanim, but rather a kinyan of ishus—a relationship. The first kal vachomer establishes that if chuppah were to work for erusin, it would work because it creates ishus, not because it is a superior form of kinyan in technical terms.
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-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.
