No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a nesuah (married woman) eat terumah while an aruseh (betrothed woman) does not, if both involve kinyan kaspo? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes whether chupah creates a stronger kinyan or introduces a new din of ishut (living together). The discussion explores the machlokes Rav and Shmuel about yibum be'oness, and how the Rambam (רמב"ם) understands both kinyan and ishut working together in chupah.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis of why chupah enables a woman to eat terumah. The fundamental question is whether the ability to eat terumah stems from kinyan kaspo (monetary acquisition) or from the unique status of living together as husband and wife (ishut). The Gemara initially assumes that ketzef (betrothal with money) does not permit eating terumah, while chupah does. The shiur explores two possible reasons for this distinction. First, perhaps chupah represents a stronger kinyan kaspo than ketzef, creating a more complete ownership. Second, perhaps the ability to eat terumah is not based on kinyan kaspo at all, but rather on the din of ishut—the actual living together as husband and wife that begins with chupah. The Rashba suggests that eating terumah might derive from hachnas man (bringing her into one's domain) alone, independent of kinyan kaspo.
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.
