No community start suggestion yet.
Why did the Rambam (רמב"ם) change the Mishna's case from ten years to five years? The analysis explores whether shemitah begins with an issur on the malveh to collect or automatically discharges the chov. This fundamental distinction affects how tanai works and resolves the Beis Yosef's challenge to the Rosh's ruling.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes in understanding the mechanics of shemitah and its impact on lending obligations, focusing on several key questions raised by the Ramban (רמב"ן) and other Rishonim. The central issue revolves around whether shemitah operates by placing an issur on the malveh (lender) to collect debts, or whether it automatically discharges the chov (obligation) itself. The discussion begins with the Ramban's question about why the Gemara (גמרא) requires that the lender actually gave mashkon (collateral) or moser shtaros lebeis din (handed over documents to court). According to the Mishna, when someone lends money for ten years and shemitah intervenes, ein shemitah meshameites (shemitah does not cancel the debt). The Ramban asks why the potential ability to give collateral isn't sufficient - why must it actually be done?
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!
Makkos 3a-b
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
