A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father keep the money when someone marries his daughter? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 3b presents two approaches: Rashi (רש"י) argues the father only holds the right to perform the act of kiddushin, while Tosafos (תוספות) contends the father owns his daughter's kiddushin rights entirely. This fundamental dispute creates different halachic outcomes regarding who keeps the money in different methods of kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of why a father receives and keeps the money when his daughter is married through kiddushin. The Gemara derives this from the pasuk of "yotzei chinam ein kesef" - when an amah ivriah goes free, there is no money to the master, but there is money "l'adon acher," which refers to the father when his daughter marries. The central question the Gemara raises is: perhaps the money should go to the daughter herself (v'eima l'dida)? The Gemara answers that since the father is involved in receiving the kiddushin, he keeps the money. However, the exact meaning of this principle becomes the subject of a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות).
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.
