A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man uses ambiguous language like "harei at tzarosi" (you are my bundle) for kiddushin, is it valid? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question assumes asukin b'oso inyan—discussing marriage beforehand. The shiur explores whether asukin provides certainty of her consent or whether ambiguous terms create a safek retraction from clearer language said earlier, analyzing when silence creates halachic assent.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of ambiguous language in kiddushin and the concept of asukin b'oso inyan (engaged in discussing that matter). The Gemara asks whether phrases like "harei at tzarosi" (you are my bundle) or other unclear terms constitute valid kiddushin language. The core question emerges: Why does the Gemara frame this as a safek (doubt)? If we pasken like Rav Yosi that asukin b'oso inyan doesn't require explicit language, the kiddushin should be valid. But if the halacha (הלכה) were like Rav Yehuda requiring explicit statement, there would be no question—it wouldn't work. The Avnei Miluim asks: if asukin b'oso inyan establishes that both parties want marriage (like Rabbah holds), why doesn't the Gemara simply say they were asukin, making even "tzarosi" valid? Why introduce the problem of omrim lo l'melacha (perhaps he means work, not 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 6a
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.
