No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes through the mechilah (forgiving) of ribbis she doesn't legally owe? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether kiddushin can work with the fifth zuz of a four-for-five loan arrangement—money that has no legal standing. Two approaches emerge: either the hanah comes from forgiving what she would have paid (though forbidden), or the kiddushin works through the hanah of the original loan itself.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Masechta Kiddushin (2a), focusing on the mechanism of kiddushin through monetary transfer and specifically the case of "keitzad b'kesef" (how does kiddushin work with money). The discussion centers on a complex case where a man lends a woman four zuzim with the stipulation that she repay five, and then offers to be mekadesh her by forgiving the fifth zuz. The Gemara raises two fundamental problems with this case. First, it appears to be ribbis ma'aseh (actual interest), which presents a linguistic problem—the term should be "haramas ribbis" (removing interest) rather than ribbis ma'aseh. Second, and more fundamentally, there is the problem of "chayenu milvah" (this is merely a loan)—how can there be any chiddush (novelty) in forgiving the fifth zuz when she never had a legal obligation to pay it in the first place? In Jewish law, ribbis is not legally collectible; if someone pays it, they can reclaim it, and if they refuse to pay, no beis din will enforce it.
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 2a
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.
