A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a man betroths a woman saying "with fifty zuz" but gives only one dinar, is she betrothed? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces the principle of mekudeshes v'yashlam—she is betrothed contingent on payment of the rest. But this raises a fundamental question: how can this be a valid betrothal when she's locked into a state of igun (potential agunahship) for the rest of her life, unable to marry anyone else while awaiting payment the man may never deliver?
This shiur examines a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 8a dealing with mana zu—a conditional betrothal involving partial payment of the promised sum. The central issue is whether a woman becomes betrothed (mekudeshet) when a man says "be betrothed to me with fifty zuz" but initially gives only one dinar. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the position of Rav Elazar that the kiddushin takes effect immediately—she is mekudeshes v'yashlam (betrothed contingent on completing the payment). The shiur analyzes the Gemara's question: if the kedushah (sanctity of betrothal) takes effect from the outset (kedushin she'yashlam), how can either party retract? According to Rav Elazar, the kedushah is chal (takes effect) on the perutah given, so the condition should already be partially fulfilled.
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.
