No community start suggestion yet.
How does ma'amad shloshtan create a direct obligation from debtor to transferee when the debtor isn't party to the transaction? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: mechiras shtaros transfers only collection rights (shibud nechasim), leaving the debtor obligated to the original creditor, while ma'amad shloshtan creates a new shibud haguf directly obligating the debtor to the third party—explaining why mechilah works in one but not the other, and why all three parties must be present.
This shiur analyzes Gittin 13b-14a, focusing on the fundamental mechanics of ma'amad shloshtan (three-party transfer) and how it differs from mechiras shtaros (sale of a debt document). The central question is why ma'amad shloshtan requires all three parties to be present and why mechilah (forgiveness) operates differently in the two systems. The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds that mechiras shtaros is only derabbanan, and therefore mechilah helps—the original creditor can still forgive the debt. Tosafos (תוספות), however, says that by ma'amad shloshtan, mechilah does not help. This creates a fundamental problem: if both mechiras shtaros and ma'amad shloshtan are derabbanan, why should mechilah work in one but not the other? The Rambam himself seems to pasken in Hilchos Ishus that one can be mekadesh a woman with ma'amad shloshtan, but not with mechiras shtaros, suggesting that ma'amad shloshtan creates something fundamentally different.
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!
Gittin 13b-14a
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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
