No community start suggestion yet.
How does tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov relate to chov l'acheir? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov only applies when there is chov l'acheir, creating an irrevocable right that overcomes the lack of a makneh. The principle of migo d'zachai l'nafshei zachai nami l'acheirim provides the mechanism for direct acquisition, avoiding the chov l'acheir problem entirely.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Gittin 11b concerning the principles of tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov (benefit to a creditor) and chov l'acheir (acquiring a debt for another person). The discussion centers on how these concepts interact and what mechanisms allow for valid acquisitions in complex creditor-debtor scenarios. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position is carefully examined: he holds that tovas hana'ah l'ba'al chov only applies in a case where there is chov l'acheir (makom she'yesh chov l'acheir). This follows Rav Yochanan's position in the Gemara (גמרא). The shiur distinguishes this from cases of metziah (found objects), where different principles apply because there is no chov l'acheir involved—someone simply loses an object and another finds it.
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!
Gittin 11b
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.
