A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can two men marry two women using only one peruta between them? The Gemara (גמרא)'s case of "shtei venosayich lishnei bonai bepruta" reveals a fundamental distinction: kiddushin is a religious ceremony that can be shared, not a kinyan requiring separate monetary exchanges. This explains why what works for kiddushin cannot work for buying two cows.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 7b regarding the case of "shtei venosayich lishnei bonai bepruta" — a father who has two daughters and marries them to two sons using only one peruta. The Gemara presents a fundamental question: do we follow "basar noisen" (after the giver) or "basar mekabel" (after the receiver)? If we follow basar noisen, each man gave only half a peruta, which should invalidate the kiddushin. If we follow basar mekabel, the kiddushin may be valid in doubt. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on the mechanics of this case. Rashi appears to suggest that the boys can be adults who appoint their father as their agent (shaliach), using their own money. Tosafos objects that if the girls are adults (gedolos), the father would have to be their agent, and this would require two full perutas (one for each). Therefore, Tosafos concludes the case must involve minor daughters (ketanos) where the father receives kiddushin on their behalf by Torah (תורה) law. Tosafos also states that the Gemara's formulation "basar noisen" is not precise (lav davka).
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.
