A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can kiddushin take effect without explicit declaration? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding whether a dayan who is unaware of Rav Yehuda Mar Shmuel's ruling—that the couple must be "asukim beoso inyan" (engaged in the same topic)—will err leniently or stringently. The Maharsha's challenge centers on safek kiddushin and the application of chezkat penuyah.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Kiddushin 6a regarding the principle of "asukim beoso inyan"—the requirement that kiddushin (or gittin) be accompanied by speech on the same topic. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Rav Yosi's ruling that dayato (sufficiency of speech) applies only when they are "asukim beoso inyan," and Rav Yehuda Mar Shmuel's clarification that this is necessary even according to Rav Yosi to avoid the problem of meinoyan leinoyan (switching topics). Without continuous engagement in the topic, even with dibur (speech), kiddushin would fail due to the fundamental requirement of explicit declaration (menoyan yodan). The shiur explores what constitutes the minimum threshold for "asukim beoso inyan." The Gemara distinguishes between being continuously engaged in the exact same topic versus moving "meinoyan leinoyan beoso inyan" (from topic to topic within the same general subject). Rabbi Zweig clarifies that everyone agrees that if the conversation shifts to a completely different topic (like discussing the weather), there is no valid kiddushin—this is obvious from menoyan yodan. The question is whether meinoyan leinoyan beoso inyan is sufficient, which is the subject of the dispute between Rav Yosi and Rebbe.
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 6a
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.
