A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father receive the money when his daughter is betrothed? The Gemara (גמרא) derives this from the pasuk about an amah ha'ivriah going free—"ein kesef la'adon zeh, yesh kesef la'adon acher." The shiur unpacks Rashi (רש"י)'s multi-layered interpretation: by kesef, the father owns the money; by shtar, the father is mekabel the shtar; and by bi'ah, the father's permission controls even al korcha.
This shiur offers a granular analysis of Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the fundamental question: why does a father—not the daughter herself—receive the money of kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא) begins with the Mishna that states "bekesef, bishtar, uv'bi'ah," and then asks "kesef mina lan"—from where do we know the father is entitled to the money? The answer cited is from the pasuk dealing with an amah ivriyah (Jewish maidservant): "yotzei'ah chinam ein kesef"—she goes free without money. The Gemara darshens: ein kesef la'adon zeh (no money to this master), v'yesh kesef la'adon acher (but there is money to another master)—i.e., to the father when she is betrothed. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, which takes a strikingly different approach to each of the three modes of kiddushin. By kesef, Rashi writes "kesef yesh lo"—the father owns the money. By shtar, Rashi states "u'mekabel ha'shtar"—the father is the one who receives the shtar. By bi'ah, Rashi writes "al korcha lashen kiddushin be'od na'arah"—the father has the power to authorize bi'ah even against the daughter's will (al korcha) as long as she is a na'arah. The shiur wrestles with why Rashi articulates each kenyan differently. If all three involve the father's authority, why doesn't Rashi describe them uniformly? One possibility raised is that Rashi is highlighting three distinct chiddushim: (1) by kesef, the novelty is that the father ultimately owns the money even if the ma'aseh kiddushin is performed with the daughter; (2) by shtar, the chiddush is that the father himself must be mekabel the shtar—the ma'aseh kiddushin is conducted with him; and (3) by bi'ah, the chiddush is that the father's consent is required and can override the daughter's lack of consent (al korcha).
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.
