No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna say 'pruta v'shaveh pruta' instead of just 'shaveh pruta'? Rashi (רש"י) reveals that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel don't just disagree about quantity of money needed for kiddushin—they disagree about the definition of kesef itself. This fundamental machloket about whether kesef means literal silver or any monetary value has practical implications for determining modern equivalents of shaveh pruta.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6b, focusing on a fundamental question about the nature of kesef (money) in kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) asks why the Mishna says 'pruta v'shaveh pruta' instead of just 'shaveh pruta,' when elsewhere it simply says 'shaveh pruta.' Rashi (רש"י) explains this is because the word 'kesef' in the Mishna requires clarification - which kesef? A dinar according to Beit Shammai or a pruta according to Beit Hillel. Rabbi Zweig explores two fundamentally different understandings of the machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The simple understanding is that they argue about the quantity of money needed for kiddushin - how much kesef is required. However, Rashi suggests a deeper interpretation: they actually disagree about the definition of kesef itself. According to this view, Beit Shammai holds that only a dinar qualifies as kesef, while Beit Hillel holds that even a pruta is considered kesef. This is why the Mishna says 'b'eizeh kesef' (which kesef) rather than 'b'kamah kesef' (how much 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 6b
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.
