A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes when money is given indirectly—through a guarantor or third party—rather than directly to her? The shiur analyzes three cases on Kiddushin 7a: kiddushin through din arev (guarantor), din eved kena'ani (freed slave), and din shenayim (combination). A fundamental tension emerges between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding whether the woman is mekudeshes through hana'ah or through the money itself, and whether the baal or the shaliach must say "harei at mekudeshes li."
The shiur opens with three technical cases presented by the Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 7a. In the first case (din arev), a woman tells a man to lend money to a third party and she will guarantee the loan, thereby becoming mekudeshes. The Gemara establishes that even though the money never reaches her hand (af al gav delo matei hanoli yad'ei), she can obligate herself (kamishabad nafshei) through the din of arev (guarantor). The second case (din eved kena'ani) involves a third party giving his own money and saying the woman should be mekudeshes to someone else—this works through the principle of eved kena'ani, where someone can be acquired even though the money comes from another party. The third case (din shenayim) combines both principles: the woman asks a third party to give money to the intended husband, and she will be mekudeshes to him. Rabbi Zweig first addresses a fundamental question: what do we need the pasuk of arev for in the context of kiddushin? If someone asks you to spend money on his behalf, he owes you that money as a basic matter of doing a service—why does this require a special din of arev? The answer emerges that by a loan, the primary obligation rests with the borrower, not the lender. The lender is owed back what he gave. The chiddush of arev is that the guarantor can create a legal obligation (shibud) upon himself even though he received no direct hana'ah and the primary obligation lies elsewhere. This is fundamentally different from a simple case of agency or service.
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.
