A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with an object whose value is uncertain, must there be a prior expert appraisal (shuma), or can it suffice that its value is later verified? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef on Kiddushin 7b-8a, comparing two versions of the Gemara (גמרא). It explores whether "kodlu" (unspecified value) means saying nothing at all versus explicitly saying "whatever it's worth," and whether semichas da'as (the woman's consent) depends on a definite stated value or merely trust in the groom's representation.
This shiur examines a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7b-8a concerning the validity of betrothal (kiddushin) when performed with sheveh kesef (objects of monetary value) rather than actual currency. The central question is whether an expert appraisal (shuma) must be performed before the kiddushin, or whether it suffices to verify the value afterward. The Gemara presents two versions (lishnos) of a dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef. In the first version (lishna kama), Rava holds that no prior appraisal is needed—if the man says "this is worth fifty," the kiddushin is valid as long as the value is later confirmed. Rav Yosef disagrees, requiring an expert appraisal beforehand. In the second version (lishna basra), both agree that when a specific value is stated, an appraisal is needed; they disagree about "kodlu"—when no specific value is mentioned.
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.
