A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes the essential act of kiddushin—the verbal declaration (amira) or the physical transfer (nasinah)? The shiur develops a fundamental machloket between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and other Rishonim: the Rambam holds the ma'aseh nasinah is the essence of kiddushin (amira merely defines the nasinah), while the Tur/Shulchan Aruch require amira as an integral component. This dispute yields critical nafka minas in safek/mekudeshes misafek cases.
This shiur continues a detailed analysis of Kiddushin 5b, exploring the fundamental nature of the ma'aseh kiddushin—the act that creates the marital bond. The central question is whether kiddushin requires both a verbal declaration (amira) and a physical transfer of value (nasinah), or whether the nasinah alone constitutes the essential act. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a man says "Harei at mekudeshes li" to one woman and adds "ve'at" to her friend. If he says "ve'at nami" (you too), both women are potentially mekudeshes through the principle of yad (completing language). But if he merely says "ve'at," there's a safek: does this mean "ve'at nami" (you too) or "ve'at chazoi" (you be a witness)? The Gemara concludes there is no yad by kiddushin—we don't complete incomplete language—so the second woman is not mekudeshes.
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 5b
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.
