A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't shtar kiddushin require a shever pruta? The shiur develops the Ran's fundamental approach that shtar kiddushin works as an exchange—she transfers herself for the shtar—distinguishing it from other shtaros and explaining why isur hana'ah cannot work by kiddushin.
This shiur explores the Rif and Ran on Kiddushin 2a-b, analyzing why shtar kiddushin doesn't require a shever pruta. The Rif holds that if a shtar were worth a shever pruta, it would work as kesef, so the shiur must work ein bo shever pruta. The Ran presents the rationale: if it were shever pruta, one couldn't learn from get (ma'aseh vegeirus), because the two are different—hai kadeina v'hai kadeina—an isha wouldn't transfer herself for less than a shever pruta. Rabbi Zweig challenges the standard understanding of the Ran and presents a novel reading. The shiur argues that the essence of shtar kiddushin is fundamentally different from all other shtaros. In normal shtaros—get, shtar shichrur, shtar kinyan—the makneh writes and transfers the shtar. In shtar kiddushin, the chosson writes it. This means the shtar is not a unilateral legal instrument; rather, the woman receives the shtar and in exchange transfers herself (makneh nafsha). Shtar kiddushin is therefore a form of haknah, an exchange akin to kesef, not merely a legal document.
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-b
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.
