No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with "this mana" but delivers only a dinar, is she immediately married with a debt owed, or married conditionally upon full payment? The Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes between viewing the stated amount as a purchase price versus a tanai reveals two fundamentally different models of the kiddushin transaction, with Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagreeing on whether the woman can accept later payment or whether the kiddushin is automatically void.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the complex issue of partial payment in kiddushin. The central question is: when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mana" (you are betrothed to me with a mana) but only gives a dinar, what is the halachic status of the woman? The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav Elazar's principle that she is mekudeshes v'yashlim—married immediately but the man must complete payment. This creates an apparent problem: the woman is locked into a precarious position where she cannot marry anyone else (since she might be married to this man), yet she is not definitively married either (since he might not pay). The shiur asks: why would a woman agree to such an arrangement?
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 8a
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.
