No community start suggestion yet.
Why is nosnah hi amra hu (she gives, he declares) invalid for kiddushin, while nosnah hu amra hi (he gives, she declares) by Adam Chashuv is questionable? The shiur develops the fundamental difference between active and passive parties in kinyan kiddushin. Tosafos (תוספות) and Rashba are shown to disagree whether Adam Chashuv means he gives her hana'ah or she takes hana'ah from him, reframing when shtika kehodaah (silence as consent) applies.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of Tosafos (תוספות) on Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a woman's or man's declaration can create valid kiddushin. The central question is why the Gemara doesn't cite the case of nosnah hi amra hu (she gives money and he declares kiddushin) as an example of invalid kiddushin, similar to how it cites other invalid cases. Rabbi Zweig begins by explaining Tosafos's approach: the Gemara only mentions cases that are definitively invalid, not cases that might sometimes be valid. Nosnah hu amra hi (he gives, she declares) is not mentioned because by Adam Chashuv (an important person), it might be valid, and the Braysa avoids cases with uncertain status. This raises the question: what about nosnah hi amra hu by Adam Chashuv—should that also be a safek (questionable case)?
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 5b
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.
