No community start suggestion yet.
How do we know a woman can be betrothed with money (kesef) and that the father receives it? The Gemara (גמרא) derives this from the pasuk "yotzeis chinam ein kesef" regarding an amah ivriyah—if she doesn't need to pay when leaving, there must be another yetzia requiring payment. This teaches both kiddushin with kesef and the father's ownership rights.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s derivation of the laws of monetary betrothal (kiddushin b'kesef) and the father's rights to receive the money. The central sugya asks two fundamental questions: how do we know that kiddushin can be accomplished with money, and how do we know that the money goes to the father rather than the daughter? The Gemara derives both halachos from the pasuk regarding an amah ivriyah (Hebrew maidservant): "yotzeis chinam ein kesef"—she leaves without payment. The inference is that if in this case there is no kesef, there must be another type of yetzia where kesef is required. The Gemara identifies this as kiddushin of a na'arah, where the father receives the monetary payment.
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
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.
