No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes a valid kinyan kesef for kiddushin versus mekach umemkar? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of arev (guarantor) and eved Kenani to distinguish between kinyanim that work through mamon chagavi (actual monetary obligation) versus gemirus das (manifestation of resolve). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s apparently contradictory rulings—allowing milva for mekach but not for kiddushin, yet excluding eved Kenani from mekach—are reconciled through this framework.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of din shenayim—the case where a woman tells one man to give money to a second man and thereby becomes betrothed. The central question is what constitutes a valid kinyan kesef and how the requirements differ between kiddushin and mekach umemkar. The Gemara attempts to derive din shenayim from two sources: (1) arev (guarantor), where a person can obligate himself even though he hasn't received anything directly, and (2) eved Kenani, where one person can acquire on behalf of another who hasn't given anything. The shiur explores why each source alone is insufficient and why both are needed together.
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.
