A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with two half-perutahs (or two full perutahs), is the kiddushin valid? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י) vs. Tosafot Ri HaZaken's reading of whether mone v'holech creates a unified woman or just combines the money, explains why the Rambam (רמב"ם) reverses the Gemara (גמרא)'s order, and explores the Raavad's challenge.
This shiur on Kiddushin 7a tackles the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis of whether kiddushin is valid when performed with incremental payments. The Gemara presents three cases: betrothing with two half-perutahs, with two full perutahs on the same day, and with two full perutahs on different days. In each case, the question is whether we apply the principle of "mone v'holech" (counting progressively) to validate the kiddushin. The shiur presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot Ri HaZaken regarding how to understand the Gemara's question and answer. According to Rashi, everyone agrees that two half-perutahs combine to form a complete perutah from a monetary perspective—half a perutah is simply nothing, not kesef at all. The Gemara's question is whether the woman herself is subject to mone v'holech. If we say she is not, then the man has performed two separate acts of kiddushin on two "halves" of the woman (chatzi isha), which is invalid because "ein isha miskadeshes l'chatzon" (a woman cannot be betrothed in halves). The Gemara's conclusion (im tim tzulomer) is that mone v'holech applies to the woman as well, meaning the end result is one complete perutah on one complete woman.
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.
