No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a father receive kiddushin money when his daughter isn't completely leaving his reshus like an ama ivria leaves her master? The Gemara (גמרא)'s gezeira shava seems flawed since the daughter still needs chuppah and remains under some paternal authority. Rashi (רש"י) resolves this by distinguishing between what the husband gains versus what the father ultimately loses through the kiddushin process.
This shiur examines a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 4a that addresses who receives the money when kiddushin is performed—the father or the daughter herself. The Gemara begins with the principle of yitzia d'kavasa, comparing the yitzia (departure/leaving) in kiddushin to that of an ama ivria (Jewish maidservant). Just as by an ama the master (adon) receives no money when she goes free (v'yatza chinam ein kesef), but there exists another yitzia where there is money, so too by kiddushin there should be kesef, and it should go to the father as the parallel to the adon. The Gemara raises a fundamental question: why should this comparison work? The departure of an ama from her master's reshus is complete (lagamri), while by kiddushin the girl hasn't completely left her father's reshus since she still needs chuppah, and her ma'aseh yadayim and inheritance still belong to the father. This creates the kasha of 'v'hala damya hai yitzia l'hai yitzia' - these departures aren't really comparable.
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 4a
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.
