A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can kal vachomer arguments prove that a woman can be acquired through shtar (writ) just as she can through kesef (money)? The shiur analyzes Tosafot's approach to the Gemara (גמרא)'s failed kal vachomer attempts from amah ivriah and from get, distinguishing between logical chumros and halakhic chumros, and explaining why the Torah (תורה)'s explicit chumros carry more weight in determining kinyan mechanisms than speculative logic.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Tosafot on Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s attempts to prove through kal vachomer that a woman can be acquired (mekudeshes) with a shtar, just as she can be acquired with kesef. The Gemara explores multiple potential kal vachomer arguments, each of which encounters significant objections. The first major section examines Tosafot's suggestion of an alternative kal vachomer from amah ivriah (a Jewish maidservant). Tosafot proposes: just as an amah ivriah is not released through biah (marital relations) yet is released through shtar, so too a woman who is acquired through biah should certainly be able to be acquired through shtar. The Gemara's objection—"sheken yotzei bekesef" (that the amah has the additional stringency of being released through money)—appears initially puzzling when applied to this formulation, since the kal vachomer concerns shtar, not 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 5a
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.
