A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) introduce "bezeh" (with this) as a requirement in kiddushin when it doesn't appear in the Gemara (גמרא)? The shiur develops a fundamental insight: "bezeh" is not part of the laws of the kinyan itself (kesef, shtar, or biah), but rather part of the laws of eidus—the testimony that creates the chalos kiddushin. The witnesses must know this specific money is for kiddushin, making them participants in establishing the marriage, not just observers.
The shiur opens with a textual puzzle: Rashi (רש"י) introduces the phrase "bezeh" (with this) by biah in explaining the Mishna, and the Rambam (רמב"ם) introduces it by kesef in his halachic ruling, yet neither formulation appears in the Gemara (גמרא) on daf 5a-5b. The Gemara discusses only "noson v'amar" (he gave and said) for kesef kiddushin, without mentioning "bezeh" at all. Why would Rashi and the Rambam add language not found in the Gemara? Furthermore, the Rambam reverses the order from "noson v'amar" to "omer v'noson" (he says and then gives), stating first "omer lo harei at mekudeshes li" and then "v'nosno lo" (and then he gives it to her). This departure from the Gemara's language requires explanation, as the Rambam's methodology is to pasken halacha (הלכה) precisely as stated in the Gemara. The shiur proposes a fundamental distinction between two categories of law in kiddushin. The Mishna in the first perek discusses the three ways a woman is acquired—kesef, shtar, and biah—describing the kinyan itself, the action that creates the acquisition. The Gemara on daf heh elaborates on this, teaching that kesef requires both a maaseh nisina (act of giving) and a maaseh amira (act of verbal declaration). However, there is another dimension to kiddushin entirely separate from the kinyan: the requirement of eidim (witnesses). The Gemara in Sanhedrin 23b establishes that kiddushin uniquely requires eidei kiyum—witnesses who are not merely verifying what happened (lo ta'aneh ed shaker) but are actually necessary for the chalos, the halachic establishment of the marriage. Without witnesses, even if both parties admit they performed kiddushin, the marriage is not valid. This is unique to kiddushin; other kinyanim do not require witnesses as part of their chalos.
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-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.
