No community start suggestion yet.
Can a kiddushin work when someone else gives the money? The shiur explores the fundamental chakira between Rashi (רש"י), Rambam (רמב"ם), and Rosh regarding eved kena'ani: does it teach that another's money can suffice, or that another's ma'aseh nasina can create the kinyan? The analysis extends to understanding the parallel yesod in arev and hoda'as ba'al din—how one becomes obligated for money never actually received.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in kiddushin: what is the din of eved kena'ani (the Canaanite slave who redeems himself), and how does it enable a kiddushin to work when a third party gives the money to the woman? Rabbi Zweig develops a complex chakira between three major Rishonim—Rashi (רש"י), the Rambam (רמב"ם), and the Rosh—each offering a different understanding of what eved kena'ani teaches us. The shiur opens with a discussion of the parallel concept of arev (guarantor) and its relationship to hoda'as ba'al din (admission of obligation). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to the Rambam's approach, when someone says "I owe you money," this creates an actual chiyuv (obligation), not merely a promise to give a present. The yesod here is that a person has the koach (power) to create an obligation on himself as if he had actually received money, even though no money changed hands. This is the mechanism underlying both hoda'as ba'al din and arev—in both cases, money that was never actually received can nevertheless create a real chov (debt).
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 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.
