A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) cite the pasuk that includes a get to teach kiddushin by kesef? Rashi (רש"י) explains: the get clause proves we're learning about an ishah, not a pilegesh. The shiur explores the difference: kiddushin with commitment to nisuin (requiring get) versus kinyan for bi'ah alone, and analyzes the Kal vachomer for kesef against the pircha from yevamah.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kiddushin 4b, beginning with the Tanna's derivation that kiddushin is accomplished through kesef from the pasuk "Ki yikach ish ishah u'va'alah." The Gemara cites Devarim 24 which continues "v'haya im lo simtza chen be'einav...v'chasav lah sefer kreisos." Rashi (רש"י) immediately asks: why does the Gemara quote a pasuk about divorce (get) when teaching the din of acquiring an ishah through kesef? Rashi explains that the reference to get is crucial to establish that the pasuk speaks of ishah—a married woman requiring a get—rather than pilegesh, which according to Rashi's view is kiddushin b'li kesubah and does not require a get. The shiur clarifies that kiddushin means creating a commitment to nisuin. When a woman is mekudeshes with kesubah (commitment to nisuin), she becomes "beiso" immediately—she is part of his household, able to eat terumah or korban kodashim. This relationship requires surgery—kreisos—to dissolve it. Pilegesh, by contrast, is a kinyan for bi'ah alone without commitment to nisuin, and thus does not necessitate sefer kreisos. Rashi's proof that the pasuk speaks of ishah is that a get is mentioned, showing the Torah (תורה) is addressing a full kiddushin relationship, not pilegesh.
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 4b
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.
