A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father arranges kiddushin for his minor daughter, who receives the money—father or daughter? The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b's discussion of "amaleh dido" and examines the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot: Does the Gemara (גמרא) ask how we know the father receives money for kiddushin (Rashi), or does it ask how we know the father owns his daughter's marriage rights (Tosafot)?
This shiur presents a deep analysis of Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of who receives the money when a minor girl (ketanah) is betrothed through kiddushin. The central question revolves around the meaning of "amaleh dido" - does this mean the money should go to the daughter herself, or does it involve the father's role in some way? The shiur begins by exploring several possible interpretations of "amaleh dido." One possibility is that the money goes directly into the daughter's "bank account" even though the father performs the maaseh kiddushin. Another is that the father receives the money but must then transfer it to her. A third option is that the daughter herself should have the power to marry herself off and receive the money directly. The Gemara's answer comes from the pasuk "es biti natati laish hazeh" (I gave my daughter to this man), which indicates "avi mekabel kedusheha" - the father receives the kiddushin.
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.
