No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) exclude kinyan chalipin from kiddushin when it works for fields, even with less than a perutah? Rashi (רש"י) holds that genai hula doesn't mean the woman won't accept—it means the kinyan itself requires the woman to be machna herself (transfer herself), which she won't do for an insignificant amount. This explains why chalipin fails while kesef succeeds, and why shtar works differently—it's not a kinyan of haknah but a declaration of marriage.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of Kiddushin 3a, focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of why certain kinyanim (modes of acquisition) don't work for kiddushin (betrothal). The central question is: if kinyan chalipin works for acquiring fields even with less than a perutah's worth, why doesn't it work for kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod in Rashi: the concept of genai hula (degradation) doesn't mean the woman won't accept the kiddushin. Rather, it means there's a deficiency in the kinyan itself when applied to kiddushin. The shiur distinguishes between two types of issues: (1) the woman being unwilling to accept, versus (2) the kinyan mechanism being fundamentally incompatible with kiddushin.
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.
