No community start suggestion yet.
When someone gives money at another's behest, what creates the obligation—the money itself or the hana'ah of listening? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that in both din arev and eved Kena'ani, the kiddushin works through indirect hana'ah (the woman benefits because of the man), not direct payment. A fundamental question emerges: why isn't the hana'ah of listening alone sufficient—why must a third party actually benefit?
This shiur examines a fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the mechanism of kiddushin in two scenarios discussed in Kiddushin 7b: din arev (guarantor) and din eved Kena'ani (Canaanite servant). The core question is what precisely creates the kiddushin—is it the money itself, or the hana'ah (benefit) that the woman receives? According to Rashi, in both cases the woman is mekudeshes with money. In din arev, she is mekudeshes with the money that was given. In din eved Kena'ani, Eliezer acts as Yitzchok's shaliach, giving kesef kiddushin on his behalf, and the woman is mekudeshes with that money. The Rambam, however, takes a completely different approach. In both scenarios, the woman is mekudeshes not with money but with hana'ah. In din arev, she receives hana'ah from the fact that he listened to her words (according to the Rivkos's formulation). In din eved Kena'ani, she is mekudeshes with the hana'ah that she received a gift "biglali"—because of the mekadesh.
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 7b
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.
