A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man is mekadesh a woman with a maneh but only gives a dinar, is the kiddushin binding if he later completes payment? The Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad disagree: the Rambam holds the man is obligated to complete payment and the woman can waive it (smichas daas), while the Raavad holds the kiddushin is void unless the full amount was given at the outset. The shiur distinguishes this from a pure tanai.
Rabbi Zweig continues the analysis begun in yesterday's shiur, focusing on a Machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Raavad in Hilchos Mechirah, Perek 6, Halachos 1-2. The case involves a sale of 100 apples for $100. The Rambam rules that if 99 or 101 apples are delivered, the seller must provide the missing one or the buyer must return the extra—there is no din of onaah (price fraud) because the discrepancy is in quantity, not value. The mekach (transaction) is valid and requires correction. The Raavad disagrees: the mekach is battul (void) unless corrected, and he states this is learned from kiddushin: "davar zeh nigmar mi'kiddushin." The shiur investigates what in the Gemara (גמרא)'s sugya the Raavad is citing. The Gemara discusses a man who is mekadesh a woman "with a maneh" but only gives her a dinar (a small amount). The Gemara seems to say that if he doesn't give the full maneh, the kiddushin is battul. Yet the Raavad's case involves an obligation to make up the shortfall—in a sale, the seller owes the buyer the missing apple. How does the Raavad's rayah from kiddushin work if in kiddushin there is no debt obligation? Rabbi Zweig proposes that the Raavad must be learning the sugya such that the man does owe the woman the additional 99 (or the remaining value of the maneh). This is the key insight from yesterday's shiur: the case is not a pure tanai (condition) in which the man simply won't marry unless he gives the full amount. Rather, the man has obligated himself (mechuyav) to give the maneh. If he doesn't fulfill this obligation, the woman is in an impossible position—she relied on (somechas daatah) his commitment. Because he owes it, she can waive (be mechayel) the debt, and therefore she "owns" him—her mechilah validates the kiddushin.
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 8a
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.
