A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When kiddushin is uncertain (nasan hu v'amar hi), what is the underlying safek? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י)'s approach with that of Tosafos (תוספות) and the Rambam (רמב"ם), and develops the Ran's fundamental insight: marriage is primarily a question of kinyan (ownership), not merely issur. This reframes every safek kiddushin as a safek d'mamona—a monetary doubt governed by chazakas haguf—rather than a safek issur resolved by ordinary chazakah rules.
Rabbi Zweig opens by emphasizing the critical importance of developing strong Gemara (גמרא) skills—learning Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) carefully, which opens up the entire world of Torah (תורה) learning. The shiur then turns to a case on Kiddushin daf 2 aleph: when a man gives money (natan hu) and the woman says "I am betrothed to you" (amra hi), the Gemara rules this is a safek kiddushin mid'rabanan. Rashi explains that natan hu resembles the Torah's phrase "ki yikach," while amra hi resembles "sikach ish al ishah." Because neither party's action alone completes the kiddushin formula, we are left uncertain whether the kiddushin worked. Rashi then shifts the discussion: if another man comes and gives her kiddushin, she requires a get from the second man, because we worry either the first kiddushin worked (in which case the second is invalid) or the first failed (in which case the second worked). But the Rav identifies a glaring difficulty: Rashi changes the facts on the table. The couple wanted to marry each other. The logical nafka minah (practical consequence) should be: how do they fix it? The answer should be simple: if you want to stay married, remarry properly. Indeed, Tosafos says exactly that: "im rotzeh, tzricha kiddushin acheirim"—if he wants to marry her, he must give new kiddushin. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Perek Dalet, Hilchos Ishus states the same: "im rotzeh lichnos, chozer u'mekadesh." So why does Rashi focus on a second suitor instead of on the couple themselves continuing their desired marriage?
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 2a
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.
