A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the disagreement between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the minimum value for kiddushin—a dinar versus a perutah? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: Beis Shammai requires a dinar for creating the status of an isha (wife with full legal standing), while a perutah suffices only for pilegesh (a relationship without full marital obligations). This resolves Tosafos (תוספות)'s question about the "chumra" of Beis Shammai when a woman accepts kiddushin from another man.
This shiur on Kiddushin 2a tackles fundamental questions about the nature of marriage and the mechanics of kinyan kiddushin. The primary focus is on understanding a difficult Tosafos (תוספות) that asks: if according to Beis Shammai, giving less than a dinar means "einah mekudeshes" (she is not married), why is it considered a "chumra" of Beis Shammai when she accepts kiddushin from someone else? The Ridvaz's answer—that "of course" she can marry someone else if she's not married—seems to make Tosafos's question incomprehensible. The shiur proposes a novel approach by introducing the concept of pilegesh (concubine). Drawing on the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י), who describe pilegesh as "kiddushin without kesubah," the shiur argues that even according to Beis Shammai, a perutah creates a valid kinyan—just not the kinyan of isha that requires a full marriage. Rather, it creates the status of pilegesh, a relationship that involves monetary acquisition (unlike other Rishonim who hold pilegesh requires only yichud) but lacks the full legal framework of marriage, including the requirement for a get.
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 2a
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.
