No community start suggestion yet.
Does the money at kiddushin function as a kinyan (acquisition) or as a religious ceremony? The Gemara (גמרא)'s havamina suggests it's a ritual, not payment for ownership, explaining why the father receives money even though the daughter hasn't left his reshus. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach implies the act itself is ceremonial, while the Torah (תורה) creates the legal consequences.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kiddushin 4b regarding the nature of the money exchanged at kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to derive that a na'arah's kiddushin money goes to her father from the pasuk "min ha'ner beis aviv," but encounters difficulties comparing this to yetzias odon (the maidservant leaving her master's domain). The core difficulty addressed is Rashi (רש"י)'s position that theoretically the woman could give the money to the man for kiddushin. Tosafos (תוספות) questions this, noting that the word "kiddushin" doesn't apply to the man—he isn't mekudeshes. But Rabbi Zweig raises a deeper problem: if she gives the money, she would be acquiring him, which contradicts the entire Torah (תורה) framework of marriage where the husband owns the wife (eishes ish), not vice versa. This would undermine the concepts of get (divorce) and the prohibition of eishes ish.
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.
