A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes valid hana'ah (benefit) for marriage acquisition when the groom extends a loan's due date? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over whether one can be mekadesh through ma'avir zman (time extension), exploring two distinct conceptions of benefit: direct service versus engineered pleasure. This question bridges the halachos of kiddushin and ribbis.
This shiur on Kiddushin 6b explores a fundamental question in the laws of marriage acquisition (kiddushin): can a woman be mekadesh (married) through the benefit of having a loan's due date extended (ha'arachas zman)? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a woman owes money to a lender, and a man says he will extend her loan in exchange for marriage. The basic question is whether this constitutes valid hana'ah (benefit) sufficient to create kiddushin. The shiur begins by establishing a critical principle in the laws of ribbis (interest): ma'avir charin - when one person pays another's debt without being asked, the debtor does not owe anything in return because no direct benefit was given. The one who paid merely removed an obstacle (the creditor), but didn't give anything tangible. The beneficiary is only a passive recipient. However, if the debtor explicitly asks someone to pay his debt, that creates an obligation, transforming the act from passive benefit to active acquisition of hana'ah.
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 6b
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.
