No community start suggestion yet.
When a woman receives kiddushin with an item of uncertain value (shema shever pruta), does she require a get? The shiur analyzes Tosfos on Kidushin 12a concerning Rav Chisda's ruling that a woman who claims the kiddushin was valid is not believed to forbid herself to a second man, proving Rav Chisda rejects Shmuel's stringency requiring a get.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kidushin 12a, focusing on the machlokes between Rav Chisda and Shmuel regarding safek kiddushin. The central case involves a woman who received kiddushin with an object that may not have been worth a shever pruta. According to Shmuel, even in cases of doubtful value, the woman requires a get to remarry because perhaps the object was worth the minimum amount in another location (shema shever pruta be'makom acher). Rav Chisda, however, rules leniently that she does not require a get. The Gemara's proof that Rav Chisda rejects Shmuel comes from a case where a woman claims the kiddushin was valid, but Rav Chisda rules she is not believed to forbid herself to a second man. Tosfos questions why this proves Rav Chisda doesn't hold like Shmuel only if we're dealing with a brother (yevama case). Why couldn't the same proof work with any second man?
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!
Kidushin 12a
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.
