A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Is kiddushin with kesef (money) a kinyan mammon (monetary acquisition) or a status of kedusha? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י), Rashbam, and Geonim on whether kidushei kesef is derabbanan or d'oraisa, and develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that an arusa is forbidden even to her husband mid'oraisa until chupah—contrary to the common understanding that this issur is only mid'rabbanan.
This shiur begins with a clarification of yesterday's analysis of the Rashbam's question on the Sheitot HaGeonim. The Rashbam asks "ein hekesh l'mechtzah" on the position that kidushei kesef is derabbanan—but this appears to be a strange question, since if kidushei kesef is derabbanan, there is no hekesh to apply. The resolution distinguishes between the kinyan aspect (which is d'oraisa) and the kiddushin aspect (which may be derabbanan). The Rashbam understands that there is a d'oraisa element to the kinyan itself, but the kiddushin status is derabbanan, and therefore the rabbanan can be mafkir the derabbanan aspect through hefker beis din hefker, while hei mamru v'hei mamru addresses the derabbanan relationship dimension. The Gemara (גמרא)'s language is carefully analyzed. When the Gemara says "isha konah umakneh," Rashi (רש"י) explains this means "makneh oso l'atzma"—she must be transferred to herself, not merely acquired. This is evident from both the question and answer in the Gemara: the question is not simply about kinyan but about haknaya (transferring) to her, and the answer "Shamayim makneh lo" means Heaven transfers her to herself. This precision teaches that kiddushin requires an act of haknaya to the woman, not merely ownership.
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 2a
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.
