A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a kiddushin valid when the money and declaration come from different parties? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s divergent views on whether amira (declaration) is an integral component of ma'aseh kiddushin or merely an explanation of the kinyan, analyzing the sugya of "nasan hu v'omar hi" through the lens of kenyan mechanics versus religious ritual.
The shiur delivers an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of "nasan hu v'omar hi" — cases where the giving of money and the declaration of kiddushin come from different parties. The central question is whether kiddushin can be valid when the man gives the money but the woman makes the declaration, or vice versa. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position: kiddushin has two components — ma'aseh (the action) and amira (the declaration). According to the Rambam, the amira is not an independent element of kiddushin but merely serves to define and explain what the ma'aseh accomplishes. The Gemara presents a contradiction between a Reisha and a Seifa, leading to the question of "nasan hu v'omar hi" — what happens when these elements are split between the parties.
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.
