A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguish between "safek mekudeshes" and "mekudeshes besafek"? The shiur argues that the language reflects whether the man performed a recognizable act of kiddushin (creating a reis in her chezkas pnuya) versus merely wanting to marry without executing a proper maaseh kiddushin. The difference hinges on whether the doubt is in halacha (הלכה) or in metzius.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of safek kiddushin cases in Hilchos Ishus (perek 3, halachos 2-4). The focus is on understanding the Rambam's precise language when he writes "mekudeshes besafek" in some cases and "safek mekudeshes" in others, and whether this terminological distinction carries substantive halachic meaning. The shiur opens by mapping the Rambam's rulings across several scenarios: when he gives money to woman A as an agent for woman B and says "ba'at" (you also); when he gives money and says "ba'at nami"; the case of yad (where she physically receives the kiddushin); and the cases involving two women where one accepts on behalf of the other. Rabbi Zweig notes that the Rambam uses "mekudeshes besafek" for certain cases (nosan hu ve'amar hi, and the case of kelev-rat zachar lo in connection with a loaf of bread) and "safek mekudeshes" for others (the yad case and the kelev-rat case in halacha (הלכה) daled). This precise terminological difference, if intentional, must reflect a substantive halachic distinction.
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 5b
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.
