No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "Be mekudeshes to me with a mana" but gives only a dinar, is the woman married immediately with a debt owed, or only when she receives the full sum? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between mana stam and mana zu, exploring whether the additional money functions as part of the kesef kiddushin (purchase price) or as a separate present, and how mana b'cholech (counting it out) affects the chalos (taking effect) of the kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of kiddushin effected through a promise of money (mana) when only partial payment is given immediately. The fundamental question is: when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mana" and gives a dinar, what is the halachic status of the kiddushin? Rashi (רש"י) appears to hold that the woman must receive the dinar immediately (miyad), and the kiddushin takes effect right away because she accepted it l'shem kiddushin. This raises a fundamental question: why does Rashi focus on her intention (daas) when kiddushin is a bilateral kinyan requiring the agreement of both parties? The shiur questions how we can determine the kiddushin's validity based solely on what she intended.
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.
