No community start suggestion yet.
Can chuppah effect kiddushin through a kal vachomer? The shiur analyzes the debate between Abaye and Rava: Abaye learns from kesef using chuppah's ability to be gomer as a mere chumra ketana, while Rava requires learning from an existing kinyan. The machlokes hinges on whether you can derive a kinyan from a tzad chomer or need mei'ein hadin.
This shiur continues analyzing the sugya in Kiddushin 5b regarding whether chuppah can effect kiddushin through a kal vachomer. The fundamental question is whether hachnasah l'rishus (bringing into one's domain), which works as a kinyan in other contexts, should also work for erusin (betrothal). The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav's question challenging this kal vachomer through two approaches: the problem of shalos feloy arab (sending property versus sending a person), and the principle that kesef (money) only works after another kesef has already been given, not as a repeatable kinyan. Abaye responds that shalos feloy arab is explicitly written in the Torah (תורה) regarding eved ivri, so it's not problematic. Regarding the kesef argument, Abaye argues that kesef itself doesn't work after kesef either, so this objection applies equally to 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 5b
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.
