A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos (תוספות)'s famous question.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a-b dealing with Rav Huna's proposed kal v'chomer arguments for chuppah creating kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig opens by questioning why the Gemara (גמרא) presents a kal v'chomer that is immediately rejected: if kesef (money) doesn't make a woman maichel b'terumah (able to eat terumah) yet still creates kiddushin, then surely chuppah, which does make her maichel b'terumah, should create kiddushin. The Gemara rejects this because Ula teaches that devar Torah (תורה) (biblically) an arusah (betrothed woman) does eat terumah—kesef does make her maichel. The shiur's central question is methodological: why include this rejected kal v'chomer in the Talmud (תלמוד) at all? Since we already know from other places in Shas that arusah eats terumah mideoraysa, the Gemara could have omitted this entire passage and started directly with the correct kal v'chomer. The inclusion of the rejected argument must therefore teach us something fundamental beyond just the halacha (הלכה) that an arusah eats terumah.
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-b
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.
