A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't Syria (Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova), conquered by Dovid HaMelech, have full kedushah of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces the principle of kibush yachid lo shemo kibush—an individual conquest doesn't count. The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on what constitutes kibush yachid, the Ramban (רמב"ן)'s requirement to conquer lands in order, and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that Syria has an intermediate status—neither Eretz Yisrael nor fully chutz la'aretz.
This shiur examines a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin 8a dealing with the halachic status of Syria (Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova), lands conquered by Dovid HaMelech. The central question is: why do these conquered territories not have the full kedushah (sanctity) of Eretz Yisrael, despite being captured by a Jewish king? The Gemara introduces the principle of "kibush yachid lo shemo kibush"—a conquest by an individual (or limited group) is not considered a proper conquest that confers the full status of Eretz Yisrael. The shiur presents a detailed analysis of what exactly disqualifies Dovid's conquest. Rashi (רש"י) explains that it was a "kibush yachid" because it was done by the king for his own needs (l'tzorcho), not for the needs of all Israel (l'tzorach kol Yisrael), and it was not done with all of Israel together (sh'lo hayu kol Yisrael b'yachad), unlike Yehoshua's conquest which involved all the tribes.
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!
Gittin 8a
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.
Why does the Gemara 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's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
