No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) bring a kal vachomer that chuppah should create kiddushin when the Mishna already teaches that an arusah eats terumah? The shiur develops the yesod that kinyan kesef for erusin is not ownership itself but a kinyan commitment to nisuin—creating "beiso" status. This explains why kesef works for kiddushin and resolves the apparent redundancy in the Gemara's argumentation.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a-b exploring the relationship between kinyan kesef (monetary acquisition) and chuppah in creating kiddushin (erusin) and nisuin. Rabbi Zweig addresses fundamental questions about why the Gemara (גמרא) needs to prove from a kal vachomer that an arusah (betrothed woman) eats terumah when the Mishna already states this explicitly, and what the Gemara means when it says that "devar Torah (תורה), an arusah bas Yisrael eats terumah" based on the pasuk "ki yikneh nefesh kinyan kaspo." The core difficulty is understanding what kinyan kesef accomplishes. The shiur notes that an eved ivri—whom you own completely—does not eat terumah according to the Sifri, so mere ownership (kinyan) cannot be the basis for a woman eating terumah. Rather, the right to eat terumah comes from being "kol torov beveiso"—part of the kohen's household. This status is created through nisuin, not through erusin alone.
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 5a-b
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.
