A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man gives a woman hadas worth less than a perutah for kiddushin, then reveals hidden money inside after witnesses declare it invalid, is her silence consent to a new kiddushin or reinstatement of the original? The shiur analyzes whether this case represents kiddushei ta'us (mistaken kiddushin), explores the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rosh on whether this creates Torah (תורה)-level or Rabbinic doubt, and addresses the fundamental question of why silence requires action when normally passivity means nothing in kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 12b-13a involving a case where a man gives a woman a bundle of hadas (myrtle branches) for kiddushin, believing it to be worth a perutah. After witnesses declare it's not worth a perutah, the man reveals that four zuzim are hidden inside the bundle. The central question is whether the woman's silence constitutes consent to kiddushin, and the shiur explores multiple layers of this question. The Rosh's position is presented: the woman is a safek mekudeshes (doubtfully married) and requires a get for divorce but needs a new kiddushin to actually marry. The Rosh explains this is based on Shmuel's din regarding shaveh perutah b'makom acher (something worth a perutah elsewhere) - even without the specific complications of this case, Shmuel's principle would create the same safek status. Rabbi Zweig notes that the Rosh uses the language of "chazar" (retracted), suggesting the man changed his mind, which is normally impossible in kiddushin even toch kedei dibur (within the time it takes to say a brief greeting).
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 12b-13a
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.
