No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with a promise of money (monezer vs. mones tam), is she immediately married or only retroactively when he pays? The shiur resolves the apparent contradiction between the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם) by distinguishing between a conditional kiddushin (tanai l'mafreia) and a present kiddushin with an obligation to pay, showing that the woman retains control—she can waive the debt and force the marriage.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya on Kiddushin 8a concerning the halachic mechanisms when a man betroths a woman using the terms "monezer" (with this specific money) versus "mones tam" (unspecified money). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rav and the Sages: Rav holds that monezer creates an immediate kiddushin (she is mekudeshes now), while the Sages hold that mones tam requires the full amount to be paid before kiddushin takes effect. The central difficulty is understanding what happens when a man says "Harei at mekudeshes li b'maneh" (you are betrothed to me with 100) but only gives one dinar. The Gemara states she is "mekudeshes v'yashlem"—betrothed, and he must complete payment. But this raises a profound logical problem: why would any rational woman agree to such an arrangement? If she is mekudeshes only when he completes payment, she is trapped in limbo—unable to marry anyone else (since he could pay tomorrow) yet unable to force him to marry her (since he controls when to pay). No sane person would put herself in such a vulnerable position.
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.
