No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mekadesh a woman by forgiving her debt? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between forgiving the entire loan (invalid) and hana'as mechilas milvah (valid). Rashi (רש"י) interprets this as payment for a *service*—the effort to negotiate forgiveness—not the benefit of debt relief itself, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires the extension be offered at the moment of the loan with actual monetary transfer.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding kiddushin through loan forgiveness on Kiddushin 6b. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that while forgiving a loan outright (mechilah) does not create valid kiddushin, "hana'as mechilas milvah" does. The challenge is understanding what exactly constitutes hana'as mechilas milvah and why it differs from simple mechilah. Rabbi Zweig presents Rashi's sophisticated reading: Rashi holds that one cannot be mekadesh with the actual benefit of having a debt removed, because that is "lav midi yav"—it doesn't constitute giving the woman anything tangible at the moment of kiddushin. Removing a future obligation is merely preventing a future chesed (חסד) (loss), not transferring present value. Instead, Rashi interprets hana'as mechilas milvah as payment for a *service*—specifically, the pruta one would have paid either to the creditor himself or to a third party (sheyifaseni alkach) to negotiate or facilitate debt forgiveness. This is comparable to rekod lefanai (dancing) or other services with market value.
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 6b
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.
