A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can kiddushin work when someone says 'you are betrothed to me with the money that he gave you' without formal shlichus? Rashi (רש"י) requires shlichus for any valid kinyan kesef, while the Rashba allows another's money to create kiddushin directly. The machloket hinges on how we understand the proof from freeing an Eved Kanani with someone else's payment.
This shiur focuses on Kiddushin 7a and examines a fundamental machloket (dispute) between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rashba regarding how kiddushin works when performed with someone else's money. The central question is whether one can say 'harei at mekudeshes li with the money that he gave you' without establishing formal shlichus (agency). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to Rashi, shlichus is essential - without it, the nasina (giving) cannot be considered the maseh kinyan (act of acquisition) of the mekadesh (one performing kiddushin). The Rashba, however, holds differently, arguing that someone else's money can create a kinyan kesef even without shlichus. The shiur explores the proof from Eved Kanani (Canaanite slave), where someone can free a slave by paying the master, even though the slave himself isn't giving the money. According to Rashi, this case works because the slave is always considered to be makne (transferring ownership of) himself - the money merely removes the master's ownership rights. The Rashba interprets this differently, viewing it as a regular kinyan kesef where the slave's nasina is considered equivalent to his own giving (nasina she'acher chashuvah k'nasina shelo). This leads to complex questions about how the slave can be considered the giver when he's not physically providing the money. The analysis extends to the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position, which states that one should say 'harei at mekudeshes li with the hana (benefit) that you received because of me' rather than with the money itself. This raises additional questions about whether the Rambam's approach can be reconciled with the case of Eved Kanani, since a slave cannot give hana to his master, and the entire process occurs against the slave's will (ba'al korcho). The shiur concludes by suggesting that perhaps the Rambam doesn't hold that kiddushin works exactly the same way as Eved Kanani, but rather applies a similar principle in a different manner - the husband must actually give something himself (the hana) to be mekadesh the woman, whereas by a slave, the slave can be made to acquire himself even without his active participation.
Kiddushin 7a
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.
