A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman become betrothed through money given to a third party? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b says yes, treating the man as a guarantor (orev). Rashi (רש"י) holds the betrothal works with the actual money, while Rishonim like Tosafos (תוספות) Rid and the Rambam (רמב"ם) insist it only works "b'hai hano'ah" — with the benefit of having someone listen to you. The shiur explores what each side must explicitly say for the kiddushin to be valid.
The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b, which discusses a case where a woman says "Give money to Ploni (a third party) and I will be betrothed to you." The Gemara rules she is betrothed through the principle of "orev" (guarantor): even though the woman herself never physically received the money, the man becomes liable to her like a guarantor, and this obligation creates a valid kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig opens with a fundamental question: Why do we need a special din of orev for this case? Ordinarily, if someone asks you to perform a service or spend money on their behalf, you are entitled to payment without any formal kinyan or special legal construct. If I tell you to paint my house, you spend money on paint and labor, I owe you — no pasuk needed. So why does the Gemara invoke a special halachic category (orev) to explain the kiddushin? What makes this case different?
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.
