No community start suggestion yet.
Can a shtar (document) effect kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer from gerushin faces the problem that a shtar typically flows from the makneh to the koneh—but kiddushin requires the opposite direction. Rashi (רש"י) resolves this by reading the Gemara as discussing an IOU note written by the husband, a fundamentally different application than the standard shtar kinyan.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a regarding whether a shtar (document) can create kiddushin and how the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer from gerushin works. The shiur opens with the Gemara's attempted kal vachomer: if shtar can effect divorce (gerushin), which is more difficult, then surely it should work for kiddushin. The Gemara challenges this with a pircha: kesef works for pidyon hekdesh and ma'aser sheni, while shtar does not, suggesting kesef is actually stronger than shtar. Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental problem: the kal vachomer itself seems impossible. In all of Torah (תורה) law, shtar kinyan flows from the makneh (seller) to the koneh (buyer). But kiddushin requires the opposite—the husband must give to the wife based on "ki yikach." How can a kal vachomer create an entirely new type of shtar that doesn't exist anywhere else? A kal vachomer cannot invent a mutation; it can only extend existing paradigms.
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 5a
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.
