A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "ain kateigor naase saneigor" apply to monetary transactions like kiddushin and gittin? The shiur explores Rashi (רש"י)'s novel approach that distinguishing between the ritual act of matir (removing issur) and the kinyan itself resolves the contradiction. Rashi views kiddushin and gittin as rituals, not pure kinyanim, making the "kateigor/saneigor" problem substantive rather than absurd.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an advanced analysis of Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether a shtar (legal document) can effect kiddushin through a kal v'chomer from get, and the puzzling objection of "ain kateigor naase saneigor" (a prosecutor cannot become a defender). The fundamental question: if a shtar works to create divorce (which the Gemara considers harder than marriage), why shouldn't it work for kiddushin? And what does the religious principle of "ain kateigor naase saneigor"—which appears in contexts like the prohibition of using a calf's horn for shofar because of the golden calf—have to do with hilchos kinyanim (laws of acquisition)? The shiur begins by addressing the initial perplexity: the Gemara appears to treat "ain kateigor naase saneigor" as a serious objection in a purely transactional context. Rav engages with this objection meaningfully rather than dismissing it, which suggests it has substantive legal import beyond mere symbolism. The puzzle deepens when examining the parallel case: the Gemara questions whether kesef (money) works for gittin through the same reasoning, yet there the objection doesn't center on "ain kateigor naase saneigor" but rather on the technical halachic status of shtar as kesef.
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.
