A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father receive the kiddushin money when his daughter is betrothed? The Gemara (גמרא) explores multiple potential drashot—from the laws of annulling vows (haforas nedarim), from fines (knas), and from her handiwork (maaseh yadayim)—rejecting each in turn. The shiur analyzes the difficulties in each proposed source, focusing on the distinction between money representing intrinsic value versus windfalls and between a ketanah and naarah.
This shiur explores Kiddushin 3b-4a's discussion of the source for the father's right to receive his daughter's kiddushin (betrothal) money. The Gemara (גמרא) had initially suggested learning this law from the phrase "binu'arei beis aviha" (in her youth, in her father's house), but rejects this because if that were the source, Rabbi Yehuda's statement would be unnecessary—he shouldn't need a separate drashah for maaseh yadayim (the father's right to his daughter's earnings). The Gemara then attempts to derive this law from haforas nedarim (the father's ability to annul his daughter's vows). The shiur analyzes why this proposal fails: the principle that "mamon me'issur lo yalfinan" (we don't derive monetary laws from prohibition-based laws). Rashi (רש"י) explains this to mean we cannot derive the monetary aspects of kiddushin from the issur-based framework of vow annulment. Rabbi Zweig suggests an innovative reading: perhaps the Gemara initially thought kiddushin could be learned from haforas nedarim because kiddushin contains both issur and mamon elements—the mamon might be considered secondary (tafel) to the issur, thereby making it learnable from a pure issur context. However, this doesn't work for maaseh yadayim, which is pure mamon with no issur component.
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-4a
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.
