A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a woman be mekudeshes when she hasn't received money and the groom hasn't given any? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "shebud u'makne nafsha"—that the woman's self-imposed obligation (like an arev) simultaneously creates acquisition. A complex exploration of din shneim emerges: whose money is being used, who owes whom, and how mechilah on behalf of another creates valid kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the case of "Tain mana laploni v'kadish ani loch"—where a woman tells a man to give money to a third party and she will be mekudeshes. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that she is mekudeshes midin arev (from the law of guarantorship), even though she did not receive the money directly, because "ka'meshabed nafsheh"—she has created a lien on herself. The Gemara makes a fundamental chiddush beyond simple arev: not only is she meshabbed (obligated), but she is "makne nafsheh"—she effects a transfer of herself. This dual mechanism is critical. In ordinary arev, when someone tells you to lend money on their behalf, they become obligated to repay you. But in kiddushin, the shiur explains, something additional happens: the discharge of that shebud itself becomes the kesef kiddushin. She is not merely obligated to pay money; rather, in lieu of that obligation, she is makneh herself to the groom.
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 7a
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.
