No community start suggestion yet.
How can kiddushin work when a third party gives money on behalf of an intended husband? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach shifts the mechanism from direct kinyan kesef to hana'ah (benefit), suggesting kiddushin creates a halachic relationship rather than a conventional acquisition. This explains why normal kinyan requirements don't apply - the woman enables the kiddushin regardless of whose money facilitates it.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Kiddushin 7a focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding of how kiddushin operates through hana'ah rather than direct monetary transfer. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing the Rambam's position that when one person gives money to a woman on behalf of another for kiddushin, the kiddushin works through the benefit (hana'ah) the woman receives, not through the money itself. This raises a fundamental question about who is providing this benefit - the original giver or the intended husband. The discussion delves into the parallel case of Eved Kenani (Canaanite slave) where the Gemara (גמרא) establishes that acquisition can work through third-party payment. However, Rabbi Zweig notes a crucial distinction: while Eved Kenani operates as a standard kinyan kesef where actual money changes hands, the Rambam's approach to kiddushin suggests something fundamentally different. The shiur explores why the Rambam would change the mechanism from kesef to hana'ah and what this reveals about the nature of the kinyan.
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.
