No community start suggestion yet.
What makes marriage distinct from all other forms of kinyan? The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 2a and Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the Mishna, exploring why kiddushin requires amira (verbal declaration) alongside the kinyan and why the wife must "acquire herself back" (koneh atzma) upon the husband's death. Rashi's formulation reveals that kiddushin is not merely contractual acquisition but creates an ishus relationship that endures beyond ordinary kinyan parameters.
This shiur opens a comprehensive analysis of the first Mishna in Masechta Kiddushin and Rashi (רש"י)'s foundational commentary, focusing on the unique nature of kinyan kiddushin. The Mishna states "Ha'ishah niknes—the woman is acquired" through three methods: kesef (money), shetar (document), and biah (marital relations). Rashi's very first comment introduces the concept of "koneh atzma"—she acquires herself back—raising the fundamental question: why must a woman "reacquire herself" when her husband dies? Rabbi Zweig establishes that this requirement reveals something profound about kiddushin. By non-Jews (Bnei Noach), marriage dissolves automatically upon the death of one spouse or even when one party simply walks away. No special "matir" (releasing mechanism) is needed. The fact that Jewish law requires a limud (textual derivation) to permit an eishet ish after her husband's death demonstrates that mitat ha'baal (death of the husband) is not merely the dissolution of marriage but rather a matir—a specific halachic mechanism that releases the wife. This indicates that kiddushin creates something that transcends the mere presence of two parties.
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.
