No community start suggestion yet.
Is chuppah a kinyan (act of acquisition) or an act of ishus (marital relationship)? The shiur analyzes the Abaye-Rava dispute over whether chuppah works independently or only after kiddushin, revealing two fundamentally different understandings of nisuin. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach—that chuppah requires hachnasas reshus (bringing into the husband's domain) for a besulah but only yichud for an almanah—emerges from viewing chuppah as ishus rather than kinyan.
This shiur explores a fundamental dispute in Kiddushin 5b between Abaye and Rava concerning the nature of chuppah and whether it can function independently of kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav Huna's kal v'chomer: if kesef, which cannot accomplish nisuin after kesef kiddushin has already been given, can still create kiddushin, then chuppah, which does accomplish nisuin after kesef kiddushin, should certainly be able to create kiddushin on its own (according to Refuna's position). Rava challenges this reasoning with the argument that we only find chuppah working "achar kiddushin" (after kiddushin). Perhaps chuppah only functions in conjunction with kiddushin and cannot stand alone. How can we extrapolate from a chuppah that works together with kiddushin to a chuppah that would work independently?
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.
