A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father receive the kiddushin money when a na'arah is betrothed? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם): Rashi holds the father must receive the kesef because he is the mekabel kiddushin (the betrothal act must be performed with him), while Rambam holds the girl has her own "yad" (legal capacity) but her father controls her reshus (decision-making authority) regarding marriage. The analysis explores whether kiddushin money is a kinyan mechanism or peiros—payment for what the father loses.
This shiur on Kiddushin 3b explores the Mishna's statement "Av zakai b'vito b'kedushe b'kesef, b'shtar, u'b'bi'ah" — the father acquires rights in his daughter's betrothal through money, document, or relations. The central question is: what exactly does "zakai" mean, and why does the father receive the kiddushin money rather than the daughter herself? The shiur opens by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position. According to Rashi, the father is the "mekabel kiddushin" — the party who must receive the betrothal act. Just as the shtar (document) must be given to the father, so too the kesef (money) must be given to him. The Gemara (גמרא)'s initial question ("ima ledidah" — perhaps it should be to her) is answered by establishing that since the father must receive the act of kiddushin, he must also receive and retain ownership of the money. Rashi emphasizes that "kabbalas kedusheha" — receiving the betrothal — belongs to the father, not merely the money's ownership.
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 3b
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.
