A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a marriage acquisition valid when the usual roles are reversed? The shiur analyzes whether kiddushin can occur when she gives money and he accepts (nasan hi v'amar hu), versus when he gives and she speaks (nasan hu v'amra hi). Through a deep analysis of Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the gezeirah shava of ki yikach, the shiur reveals that the kinyan itself—not just the money transfer—must be part of the ma'aseh kiddushin.
The shiur provides a comprehensive analysis of Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the fundamental question of what constitutes a valid ma'aseh kiddushin (act of betrothal). The central sugya revolves around four possible scenarios: nasan hu v'amar hu (he gives and he speaks), nasan hu v'amra hi (he gives and she speaks), nosna hi v'amar hu (she gives and he speaks), and nosna hi v'amra hi (she gives and she speaks). The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on which combinations are valid. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) present fundamentally different approaches to understanding the pasuk of "ki yikach" and its relationship to the din of "yotzei'ah chinam ein kesef." Rashi learns that ki yikach teaches that nosna hi v'amra hi is invalid—when she gives and she speaks, there is no valid kiddushin. The problem according to Rashi is that the woman cannot effectuate the kiddushin through her own action and speech. The pasuk ki yikach velo ki sikach establishes that he must take, not that she should take.
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 5b
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.
