A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes incomplete language legally effective? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether "harei at" (without "li") suffices for kiddushin, paralleling yad she'eino mochach in nazir. The shiur develops that the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes: nazir requires only concrete expression of internal commitment, while neder demands objective language creating legal reality—making nazir machshava-driven and neder dibur-driven.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of yad she'eino mochach—incomplete but legally significant language—as it applies to kiddushin, nazir, and nedarim. The starting point is the Gemara (גמרא)'s question: does saying "harei at mikudeshes" without the word "li" constitute valid kiddushin? Tosafot and the Rosh address Shmuel's apparent contradiction between this case and nazir, where Shmuel requires "nazir ovair lefanav" (a clear indication). The Rosh explains that the Gemara distinguishes between hochacha gemura (complete indication) and hochacha ktza'as (partial indication). Without "li," there is no hochacha at all—not even minimal indication. The Ridvaz offers an alternative reading: the Gemara's question is why Shmuel needed such a strong case (nazir ovair lefanav) when lesser cases of partial hochacha would suffice if yad she'eino mochach were valid.
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.
