A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kesef work by ama ivria but biya doesn't, while both work by kiddushin? The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba challenge the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer learning kiddushin from ama ivria, since ama ivria ain kinyan l'shem ishus. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: ama ivria creates ownership that entitles one to ishus, while kiddushin is a ma'aseh ishus itself—not ownership but relationship.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin that attempts to derive the kinyan of kesef by kiddushin from a kal vachomer comparing ama ivria and kiddushin. The Gemara argues that since kesef works by ama ivria and biya does not, certainly by isha—where the kinyan is lighter—kesef should work. The Gemara raises a pircha: ma la ama ivria she'kein ain kinyan l'shem ishus—ama ivria is unique because it is not a kinyan of ishus. Rabbi Zweig presents the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba's fundamental question: why doesn't the Gemara ask this pircha immediately? If ama ivria is not a kinyan l'shem ishus, then the entire kal vachomer is undermined from the start—you cannot compare a kinyan of ownership (ama ivria) to a kinyan of relationship (ishus). This seems like a much stronger challenge than the technical pircha the Gemara does raise (she'kein yotzei b'kesef).
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 4a-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.
