No community start suggestion yet.
How does an arev (guarantor) become obligated when he receives nothing tangible? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: arev creates an actual monetary debt (chov mammon) the moment the loan is made, whereas schirus (hired service) generates only a binding promise to pay. This difference explains why kiddushin can work through arev but not through ordinary service arrangements.
This shiur presents a sophisticated analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7a concerning the mechanism of arev (guarantorship) and how a woman can be mekadesh (betrothed) through it. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental conceptual framework distinguishing between different types of financial obligations in halacha (הלכה). The Gemara discusses the case where a woman says "tain mon l'ploni v'hakadeish ni loch" (give money to this person and I will be betrothed to you). The central question is: how does this create kiddushin when the woman receives nothing directly? The Gemara learns that arev works from a passuk, but asks how arev can be valid given the problem of asmachta (a conditional commitment that may not be binding). The Gemara answers that arev works through "hana" – benefit – which removes the asmachta problem.
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.
