No community start suggestion yet.
Can pidyon haben be fulfilled with an object worth less than five selaim if someone values it higher? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between something objectively worth five versus something a gavra rabba would actually spend five for. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s ruling—that an item not worth five in the market can work if the kohen accepts it—raises questions about kohen hamasa b'veis hagranos and the nature of ledidi chazi.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the sugya of pidyon haben and the concept of ledidi chazi (subjective valuation). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether an eved Ivri can be acquired through chalipin and distinguishes between how the master acquires him versus how the eved redeems himself. The Mishneh LaMelech clarifies that the miyut of "bekesef mignasa" applies only to how a non-Jew purchases an eved Ivri, not to how the eved redeems himself—there's no contradiction between the limitation on money acquisition and the permissibility of self-redemption with kesef. The main focus is on the case where someone gives an object to a kohen for pidyon haben saying "ledidi chazi chamesh selaim" (to me it's worth five selaim), even though it's objectively worth less. The Gemara brings Rav Kahana, described as a gavra rabba (important person), who accepted a sudra (scarf) for pidyon haben because he needed it for covering his head. The key question: does ledidi chazi mean merely that I receive five selaim worth of benefit, or that I would actually spend five selaim to acquire it?
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 8a
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.
