A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the scope of hispashtus (spreading) when consecrating a woman or an animal? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle that hispashtus applies only to consecrating a woman (where the entire body becomes consecrated), but not to sanctifying an animal for a korban. The discussion explores the machlokes between different approaches regarding when hispashtus applies and the fundamental distinction between kedushas haguf and kedushas damim.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of hispashtus—the principle that consecration spreads to encompass the entire entity. The shiur begins by examining the Mishna's ruling that when one consecrates a woman, hispashtus applies and the entire woman becomes consecrated. However, when consecrating an animal for a korban, the Gemara states there is no hispashtus; only the specific part designated becomes sanctified. The Gemara brings a Baraisa that derives from the verse "kol asher yitein mimenu LaHashem yehiyeh kodesh" that the principle of "mimenu v'lo kulo" (from it but not all of it) limits hispashtus with korbanot. The verse teaches that if someone consecrates part of an animal, only that part becomes holy, not the entire animal. This stands in contrast to kiddushin of a woman, where the entire body becomes consecrated through the act of betrothal.
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 7a-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.
