A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What distinguishes a forbidden kedeshah relationship from permitted pilegesh or marriage? The shiur examines the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s difficult formulation "kol haboel ishah l'shem zenus belo Kiddushin" and the machlokes Rishonim about whether pilegesh requires Kiddushin. The tension between the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Ishus and Hilchos Melachim frames the core question of when a relationship crosses into biblical prohibition.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in the laws of marriage and forbidden relationships: what is the precise boundary between permitted and prohibited intimate relationships? The discussion centers on the Torah (תורה) prohibition of "Lo Sihyeh Kedeshah" and how it relates to various forms of relationships including marriage (ishah), pilegesh (concubine), and common law arrangements. The shiur begins by laying out the framework of potential prohibitions. There is a biblical negative commandment of Lo Sihyeh Kedeshah. Beyond that, there may be violations of the positive commandment of Kiddushin. Then there is the status of pilegesh, which the Rishonim dispute—some hold it is forbidden, others permit it. Finally, there is formal Kiddushin and the masechta's subject of how a woman enters marriage.
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.
