A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why did Dovid HaMelech's conquest of Aram Naharayim and Syria not achieve full kedushah of Eretz Yisrael, even though it was done al pi Beis Din? The shiur develops a crucial yesod distinguishing two modes of Beis Din authority: as transmitters of Torah (תורה) Shebe'al Peh versus as representatives of the nation making pragmatic governmental decisions. A hora'as sha'ah ruling, even when necessary for the tzibbur, may still be considered shelo k'seder, explaining why this kibush lacked full sanctification.
This shiur continues the analysis of kibush yachid versus kibush rabim, focusing on the conquest of lands beyond the original boundaries of Eretz Yisrael during Dovid HaMelech's reign. The central question is how Dovid's conquest could be considered "shelo k'seder" (improper) when it was explicitly done "al pi Beis Din veNavi HaGadol" (with the sanction of the great court and prophet). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות), which indicates that kibush yachid (individual conquest) by Dovid HaMelech does not have the full din of kibush because it was shelo k'seder - Dovid conquered Syria and Aram Naharayim before completing the conquest of the land promised to Israel, specifically before conquering the Jebusite areas of Jerusalem. This appears to be a criticism suggesting Dovid did something wrong.
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!
Gittin 8a
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
