No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a woman be mekudeshes (married) through kinyan chalipin (exchange)? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s reasoning that chalipin is excluded from the Mishna's three methods. Rashi (רש"י) holds chalipin itself is not kesef, while Tosafos (תוספות) and the Ran disagree on whether the exclusion is due to insufficient value or because it lacks the dignity appropriate for marriage.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3a, focusing on why kinyan chalipin (exchange) is not a valid method of kiddushin. The Mishna lists three methods—kesef (money), shetar (document), and biah (relations)—and the Gemara (גמרא) asks why chalipin is excluded, given that we learn kiddushin from kinyan sadeh (acquisition of a field) through a gezeirah shavah (textual analogy), and chalipin works for acquiring land. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara's question: "Lamutei ma?"—what is the number three in the Mishna coming to exclude? According to Rav Huna, the exclusion is chupa (the wedding canopy), and according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, it excludes chalipin. The shiur explores how this Mishna can be understood as an exhaustive list when the reasoning is that it only mentions what is explicit in the Torah (תורה), yet the Gemara suggests it excludes something that might otherwise be valid.
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 3a
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.
