A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman instruct someone to give money to a third party and become betrothed through the obligation created? The shiur analyzes the mechanism of kiddushin through arev (guarantorship), exploring whether the woman becomes obligated through the service performed or whether she actually receives the money. Three competing approaches emerge: she receives the money itself, she's obligated for the service, or her acceptance is deemed as if she received it.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the sugya of "tenam le'abah ule'avich" – a case where a woman (A) tells a man (B) to give money to a third party (C) and says she will be betrothed to B in exchange. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that she becomes mekudeshes through the principle of arev (guarantorship). The fundamental question is: how does this mechanism work? Rabbi Zweig presents three distinct approaches to understanding the underlying dynamics. The first approach, attributed to Yitzi, suggests that when B gives money to C on A's instruction, it is as if B gave the money directly to A, and A then disposed of it as she wished (giving it to C). According to this view, A actually receives the money and can do whatever she wants with it – including giving it away. This would be a straightforward case of kiddushin through kesef.
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.
