A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "ein lo lidah" mean in the context of a father's rights when his daughter gets married? The shiur analyzes whether the father must be the primary party to the kiddushin (requiring his consent and receiving the money directly) or whether the daughter is the primary party (with the father merely receiving money that accrues to her). The Gemara (גמרא)'s attempts to learn from various pesukim—kol shevach nurim l'viya, hafarat nedarim, and knas—help clarify whose consent is essential and why the money goes to the father.
The shiur begins by examining the fundamental question of "ein lo lidah"—what does it mean that the father has rights when his daughter gets married? The core issue is whether ein lo lidah means the daughter does the action and keeps the money, or whether the father does the action and receives the money. Initially, there is discussion about whether the father or daughter performs the ma'aseh kiddushin, with the Gemara (גמרא) establishing that there is a pasuk indicating the father does the action and therefore receives the money. A major analytical thread focuses on the distinction between the ketana (minor girl) and the na'arah (young woman). The Gemara suggests that perhaps by a ketana the father does the action and receives the money, but by a na'arah the framework might be different. The pasuk "kol shevach nurim l'aviv" (all the earnings of the young woman go to her father) becomes central to the analysis. The question becomes: does this pasuk mean the father must be given the money directly as the primary party to the kiddushin, or does it merely mean that any money the daughter receives ultimately belongs to her father?
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 3b
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.
