A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do we know that kiddushin can be accomplished with shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) and not just actual kesef (money)? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s proof from eved ivri and nezikin, exploring why two pesukim are needed and why each case cannot be derived from the other. The complex interplay between meitav requirements, voluntary versus forced transactions, and the unique nature of kiddushin is examined.
The shiur begins with an analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation of kiddushin in Hilchos Ishus compared to Rashi (רש"י) and the Braisa. The Rambam uniquely changes the order to "amira and then nesina" (saying followed by giving), departing from the Braisa's "nosein and then omer" (giving followed by saying). This is particularly striking because the Rambam typically codifies exactly what appears in the Gemara (גמרא). The shiur also notes that the Rambam introduces language not found explicitly in the Gemara, such as requiring the formula "harei at mekudeshes li b'zeh" (behold you are betrothed to me with this). The main discussion focuses on Tosafos (תוספות)'s treatment of why the Mishna teaches that shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) can be used for kiddushin. Tosafos raises the question: we require specific pesukim to teach that shaveh kesef works for eved ivri (Hebrew servant) and for nezikin (damages), as seen from the drashah of "yoshiv l'ra'abo" - why should we assume it works for kiddushin without a similar proof?
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.
