A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "mana zu" (this hundred) versus "mana stam" (a hundred) and gives money incrementally, when is the ma'aseh kiddushin complete? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Ashi and Rav Elazar: does the kiddushin take effect immediately with the first dinar (the rest being a tenai), or only when the full amount is delivered? Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Ran offer three distinct approaches to whether mana zu changes the definition of the ma'aseh kiddushin or merely the timing of its chalos.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 8a regarding the mechanics of kiddushin when money is given incrementally. The core question revolves around the machlokes between Rav Ashi and Rav Elazar: what happens when a man says he is mekadesh a woman with a "mana" (hundred) but gives the money in installments, particularly when counting "one, two, three" (mana haolech)? Rabbi Zweig begins by framing the fundamental kashya: how can there be a dispute among the Amoraim about whether kiddushin took effect? If Rav Ashi holds there is no ma'aseh kiddushin, how could witnesses (eidim) testify that kiddushin occurred? How could the woman know she is married if the legal authorities themselves are uncertain? This question drives the entire analysis.
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 8a
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.
