No community start suggestion yet.
Can ambiguous expressions like 'harei at mekudeshes' (without saying 'to me') create valid kiddushin? A fundamental chakira emerges: is the issue whether unclear language constitutes a valid yad, or whether we can recognize that a ma'aseh kiddushin is taking place at all.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 5b regarding yadayim she'einan mochihos (hands/expressions that are not clear). The central issue is whether ambiguous expressions like 'harei at mekudeshes' (without saying 'li'/'to me') can create a valid kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Shmuel's position that yadayim she'einan mochihos lo havei yadayim (unclear expressions don't work), as proven from various cases including the nazir walking before someone. The Gemara establishes that only when there is a nazir over lefanav (a nazir passing by) does saying 'hei' work for nezirus, because it creates a mochichach (clear indication) of intent. Tosafos (תוספות) argues that even without nazir over lefanav, 'hei' constitutes a yad she'einah mochichah because it's more indicative of nezirus than fasting. However, Rashi (רש"י) appears to disagree, focusing on the requirement for yadayim mochihos. The Ridvah provides a different case where someone discusses nezirus, stops talking, and then says 'hei' - this would be a yad she'einah mochichah. The Rosh takes yet another approach, establishing three levels of yadayim she'einan mochihos. A fundamental machloket emerges between two approaches to understanding this issue. The Pnei Yeshua presents two explanations: either we learn the entire din of yadayim from nedarim (where hafla'ah is required), or there's a separate requirement by kiddushin that the ma'aseh kiddushin be nikkar (recognizable). This creates a basic chakira - is the issue about whether the language constitutes a valid yad, or whether we can recognize a ma'aseh kiddushin taking place? The Ridvah's position suggests the latter - that any yad she'einah mochichah constitutes a dibur for kiddushin, but we need additional clarity to recognize the ma'aseh kiddushin. The Rosh disagrees, requiring that the actual language be sufficient. This leads to practical differences, such as in cases where someone was involved in shidduch arrangements and says 'harei at mekudeshes' without 'li' - according to the Ridvah, external evidence of intent would help, while according to the Rosh, it would not.
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.
