A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the mechanism of arev (guarantorship) work in kiddushin compared to other kinyanim? The shiur develops a yesod distinguishing shevu'as haguf (personal obligation) from property exchange: while hilchos mechira requires only money transfer, kiddushin demands both property exchange and personal commitment, explaining the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s requirement of "matana" and "nene ploni biglola."
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the sugya of arev (guarantorship) in kiddushin and exploring a fundamental distinction in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of kinyanim. The central issue is how the mechanism of "ten ma'os leploni v'akadesh ani loch" (give money to a third party and I will be betrothed to you) works—whether through the actual giving of money (nasina) or through the benefit (hana) the woman receives when the man listens to her directive. Rabbi Zweig presents a major contradiction within the Rambam himself: in Hilchos Ishus, the Rambam explains kiddushin through the hana principle (similar to the Ridvaz), while in Hilchos Mechira, he explains it through the nasina (actual giving). This creates a significant nafka mina: if it's the nasina, then the malveh (lender) gets credit for the full amount given; if it's the hana, only the actual benefit (apruka) counts.
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.
