A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does arev (surety) work for kiddushin when the woman receives no money directly? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position reveals that kiddushin requires both property exchange (like kinyan kesef) and personal commitment (shebud haguf). This explains why the Rambam requires matana (a gift) in Hilchos Ishus but accepts simple nasina (giving) in Hilchos Mechira.
This advanced shiur analyzes the complex mechanism of arev (surety) in the context of kiddushin on Kiddushin 7a. The fundamental question is: when a man says to a woman, "Have ploni (the creditor) give money to ploni (a third party) and you will be mekudeshes to me," does this create valid kiddushin? The challenge is that the woman receives no money directly—she only benefits indirectly through the hana'ah (benefit) of having her request fulfilled. Rabbi Zweig identifies a major dispute among Rishonim. The Ritva understands that by arev you are meshabbeid yourself—it works through the hana'ah that you listen to me. The Tur and Rosh learn that it's the giving of the money itself (nasina) that creates the kiddushin, treating the money given to the third party as if it were given to the woman. This creates a fundamental nafka mina: according to the Ritva, the woman receives only a perutah's worth of hana'ah; according to the Rosh, she receives credit for the full amount given.
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.
