No community start suggestion yet.
When someone falsely claims a ten-year loan is due in thirty days, how much must they pay? The Gemara (גמרא) presents two conflicting opinions on whether shmitah cancels loans not yet due. The shiur analyzes the Rishonim's approaches and explores fundamental questions about the nature of debt obligations.
The shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Makkos 3a-3b dealing with shmitah's effect on loans and false claims about debt timing. The case involves someone who borrowed money for ten years but falsely claimed it was a thirty-day loan. The Gemara presents two conflicting opinions (lashon rishon and lashon acharon) regarding whether such a person must pay the full amount or only the difference between the ten-year value and thirty-day value. The first opinion holds 'shvitas mishamtaso' - that shmitah cancels the debt, so the borrower only pays the difference. The second opinion holds 'ein shvitas mishamtaso' - shmitah doesn't cancel debts not yet due, requiring full payment. Tosfos explains that we follow the second opinion because the Mishna supports it, as it establishes a general rule rather than limiting it to specific cases like ma'ava al mashkin.
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!
Makkos 3a-3b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
