A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "be betrothed to me with a manah" but only gives a dinar now, is the woman married immediately or only when she receives the full amount? The shiur examines Rav's position that she is married immediately on the assumption he'll complete payment, exploring why both parties would agree to such an arrangement and the conceptual difference between "manah zu" (this specific manah) versus "manah stam" (a generic manah).
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 8a dealing with a case where a man betroths a woman saying "be betrothed to me with a manah" but only gives her a dinar immediately. The central question is whether the kiddushin (betrothal) takes effect right away or only when she receives the full manah. Rav's position is that she is mekudeshes (betrothed) immediately, based on the assumption that both parties are serious about the marriage. Since the man said "manah" but gave a dinar, we don't assume he's playing games; rather, we assume he intends to complete the payment (v'yashlim). The Gemara operates on the principle of "kol man d'amar lo amanas dami" - anyone who makes such a statement, we treat it as if he's saying "on condition" that he'll give the rest.
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.
