A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why should chuppah (nisuin) create kiddushin (erusin) when it's normally used only for nisuin? The Gemara (גמרא) makes a kal vachomer from the three methods of erusin (kesef, shtar, biah), arguing that if they create erusin despite not creating nisuin, chuppah should surely create erusin since it does create nisuin. Rashi (רש"י)'s cryptic comments about bal korcha (against her will) appear to contradict the Gemara's own conclusion and generate multiple difficulties.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya on Kiddushin 5a dealing with a kal vachomer argument to derive that chuppah should be able to create kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a logical argument: if kesef, shtar, and biah can create erusin even though they don't create nisuin, then chuppah, which does create nisuin, should certainly be able to create erusin. The Gemara raises several objections to this kal vachomer, focusing particularly on the concept of bal korcha (acting against someone's will). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to the sugya. Rashi explains that when the Gemara says "mah kesef she'eino gomer," it means kesef does not completely remove the woman from her father's reshus (domain) for purposes of inheritance and annulling vows. The shiur raises a fundamental question: why does Rashi frame the discussion in terms of "taking out from the father's reshus" rather than simply stating that kesef doesn't fully acquire her for the husband? This becomes critical because later, Rashi will need to explain how these kinyanim relate to bal korcha.
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 5a
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.
