No community start suggestion yet.
Can a mashkan (collateral) create a shibud (obligation) when no underlying debt exists? The Ramban (רמב"ן) holds that acquiring the mashkan simultaneously creates the obligation, while Rav maintains this is impossible since mashkan can only secure existing debts. The analysis explores whether this reflects different understandings of kinyan or the fundamental nature of nesina in kiddushin.
This shiur examines a core machloket between the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rav concerning the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement 'manay ikan mashkan ikan' - if there's no money, there's no mashkan. The Ramban holds that even when saying 'when you acquire this mashkan, I want to obligate myself to give you a manah,' she becomes mekudeshes through the shibud (obligation). He argues that when one acquires the mashkan, they also acquire the shibud, as the mashkan works to create the obligation. The Rav fundamentally disagrees, maintaining that a mashkan cannot work to be koneh a shibud (acquire an obligation). According to the Rav, since the person receiving the mashkan gets no actual rights in the mashkan when no underlying debt exists, the mashkan is ineffective - it's merely words ('mili b'alma'). A mashkan can only secure an existing loan, not create one.
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-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.
