A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man gives a woman a dinar toward a larger sum, is she mekudeshes immediately or only when he completes payment? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between "mona stam" (unspecified money) and "mona zu" (this specific money), and between cases where he's "mona v'holech" (counting out money). The shiur explores Rav Ashi's position that intent is determined by the method of giving, raising profound questions about how we assess a person's daas and why we'd assume someone would enter an arrangement contrary to their interests.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 8a dealing with the dynamics of kiddushin when a man gives a woman money in installments or promises to give more than what he initially gives. The core question is: when does the kiddushin take effect—immediately upon giving the first dinar, or only when the full amount is given? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mona" (you are betrothed to me with money) and gives her a dinar, but promises to give more later (mona v'holech). According to Rav, she is mekudeshes immediately with the dinar, and the rest is treated as a tanai (condition). The question arises: how do we know he means to be mekadesh her miyad (immediately) rather than waiting until he completes the full payment?
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.
