No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be betrothed with sheveh kesef (items of value) without prior evaluation? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes a dispute whether "kol d'hu" (accepting something "as-is") eliminates the need for shuma, drawing proof from pidyon haben. The shiur explores the difference between using objects to discharge a monetary obligation and conducting a direct acquisition.
This shiur examines a fundamental dispute in Kiddushin 7b-8a about whether sheveh kesef (property with monetary value) requires prior evaluation (shuma) to effect kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents two approaches: one position holds that when someone says "kol d'hu" (accept this as-is, whatever it's worth), no evaluation is needed; the other maintains that even with "kol d'hu," prior evaluation is required. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the requirement flows from the Torah (תורה)'s comparison of sheveh kesef to kesef (money). Just as kesef has a known, fixed value (kayitz), so too sheveh kesef must have a determinable value. The question is whether this evaluation must occur beforehand or can be done later. According to the first position, "kol d'hu" suffices because we know it's worth at least a perutah. The second position requires advance shuma even when "kol d'hu" is stated, to ensure the woman isn't relying on an inflated assessment (lo smeichah da'ata).
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 7b-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.
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.
