A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When one person gives money to a woman on behalf of another for the purpose of kiddushin, is she betrothed? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s comparison to orev (guarantor) and eved Kenaani (Canaanite slave), examining a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם): does kiddushin require that the money itself come from the man, or is the benefit (hana'ah) of the transaction sufficient?
This shiur explores Kiddushin 7a, which discusses complex cases involving three parties in kiddushin (marriage). The fundamental question is whether a woman can be betrothed when one person (B) gives money to her (A) or to a third party (C), acting on behalf of another man who wishes to marry her. The Gemara (גמרא) presents several scenarios and compares them to the laws of orev (guarantor) and eved Kenaani (Canaanite slave). In the case of orev, even though the orev does not receive any direct benefit, he becomes obligated. The Gemara argues that similarly, in kiddushin, even when the woman does not directly receive money from the man marrying her, the kiddushin should be valid.
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 7a
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.
