No community start suggestion yet.
Does kinyan beer (acquisition through benefit) require hana'ah (enjoyment), and how does it work alongside kesef? The shiur addresses a question from the Shaarei Yosher about beer without hana'ah, exploring whether beer is an independent kinyan or simply a form of kesef, and ultimately applying this to the dual nature of kiddushin—kinyan versus ishut.
The shiur opens with a shaila from the Shaarei Yosher: How can kiddushei ish lo kidarka (non-standard marital relations) work if there is no hana'ah (benefit/enjoyment)? This leads to a fundamental question about kinyan beer (acquisition through providing benefit)—does beer need hana'ah to work as a valid kinyan, and if so, why does the Gemara (גמרא) need a separate pasuk for beer when it could simply work as kesef (monetary acquisition)? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental principle: For something to be considered "giving" in the framework of kinyan kesef, the giver must be transferring value, not merely "using" the recipient. When a man is intimate with a woman, he is arguably "taking" or "using" her rather than giving her something. The hana'ah she receives is incidental—she is producing her own benefit. This cannot constitute kinyan kesef because the essence of kesef is giving something of value. This explains why beer requires its own pasuk—it establishes a kinyan even in cases where the benefit to the recipient is not the kind of "giving" that would qualify as 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 9b
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.
