A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes kiddushin in a public place or living with one's mother-in-law pritzus (inappropriate conduct)? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav and Rav Nachman on Kiddushin 12b regarding whether these acts warrant malkus. Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri offer competing definitions: is pritzus a lack of proper eidim (witnesses), or does it reflect reducing marriage from kedusha to a secular transaction?
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 12b dealing with various cases where Rav administered malkus (lashes) for conduct deemed pritzus. The cases include: being mekadesh (betrothing) a woman in the shuk (marketplace), being mekadesh in a private house without shidduchim (prior arrangement/engagement), revoking a get, hitting a shaliach of Beis Din, remaining in cherem for thirty days, and a son-in-law living in his mother-in-law's house. Rav Nachman disagrees and says malkus is only administered for being mekadesh in a private house without shidduchim, arguing that even with shidduchim such conduct constitutes pritzus. The fundamental question addressed is: what exactly is pritzus in this context, and what are Rav and Rav Nachman arguing about? The Gemara states that according to Shmuel, a woman betrothed in the shuk requires a get (divorce) if she wishes to marry someone else, indicating there is a safek (doubt) whether the kiddushin took effect. The shiur notes that according to Rav, even if the kiddushin did not take effect (following those who disagree with Shmuel), the man still receives malkus for the act itself—the pritzus lies in performing kiddushin publicly, regardless of its halachic validity.
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 12b
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.
