A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man betroth a woman by extending the repayment period of her loan? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6b presents a case where he's "marbe'ach zman"—extending time on a debt. The shiur develops the fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) over what constitutes a valid "giving" in kiddushin—does the man need to actually transfer value from his possession, or is the woman's subjective benefit sufficient?
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 6b regarding the mechanism of betrothal when a man extends the repayment period of a woman's loan. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether such an extension (harvachas zman) can serve as the mechanism of kiddushin, and whether this constitutes ribbis (interest). The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that if someone lends a woman money for sixty days and then extends the period by another thirty days without demanding repayment, he can betroth her with this extension. The Ran explains that the Rambam understands "harvachas zman" as occurring during the middle of the loan period, not after it expires. The Rambam holds this is valid because there must be something transferred "b'shas kiddushin" (at the moment of betrothal). While the Rambam generally holds "hilchos mechon memker, mevas koinah," mashkenen (pledging) by kiddushin is a separate halacha (הלכה) requiring actual transfer at the moment of kiddushin.
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 6b
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.
