No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a kiddushin formula valid? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6a debates whether kiddushin terms must describe the marriage kinyan itself or whether alluding to aspects of marriage (like procreation or unity) suffices. The shiur explores when language that merely references marriage consequences rather than the act creates a valid kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of which verbal formulations create a valid kiddushin. The central question is whether kiddushin language must directly describe the marriage kinyan (acquisition) itself, or whether it is sufficient to use language that merely describes an aspect or consequence of marriage. The Gemara presents two groups of kiddushin formulations. The first group includes direct statements of the marriage relationship or kinyan. The second group consists of phrases that allude to marriage but don't directly state the kinyan—such as references to having children ("you shall have children") or to the unity between man and woman. Rabbi Zweig explores whether these indirect references are sufficient because they describe essential aspects of marriage, even though they don't describe the act of kiddushin itself.
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 6a
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.
