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.
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.
