No community start suggestion yet.
Can two brothers give one pruta together to marry two sisters? The shiur distinguishes between maase kiddushin (sanctification ceremony) and kinyan kesef (monetary transaction). Unlike kinyanim which cannot be combined, maase kiddushin can be shared—explaining why bus'ar mekabel works and why the Rambam (רמב"ם) doesn't require ketana status.
This shiur analyzes Kidushin 7b, focusing on the case where two brothers use one pruta to marry two sisters through a shaliach. Rabbi Zweig presents a fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) about whether this case involves ketanos (minors) or gedolos (adults), and what makes the kiddushin work. According to Tosafos, the girls must be ketanos because the father is not a shaliach but rather the principal (the father owns his ketana daughter's kiddushin). Tosafos argues that bus'ar noisen (following the giver) is lav davka—only bus'ar mekabel matters. Where the father acts as shaliach for the boys, you would definitely need two prutas since there are two separate maase kiddushin happening.
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 7b
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.
