No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman saying "be betrothed with fifty dollars" and gives her an object worth fifty, does she need an appraisal beforehand? Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation hinges on the distinction between betrothal with money versus an object: shevat kesef (the value of money) can only substitute for actual kesef when the woman knows its ascertainable value and accepts it as currency, creating the necessary smichat da'at (reliance).
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 8a-b, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef regarding whether a woman can be betrothed with an object whose value has not been appraised beforehand. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses two distinct cases: first, where a man says "be betrothed to me with fifty dollars" and gives her an object worth fifty (hitkadshi b'chamishim), and second, where he says "be betrothed to me with this" which happens to be worth fifty (hitkadshi b'zu). Rabbi Zweig develops Rashi (רש"י)'s unique approach to this sugya. According to Rashi, the fundamental question is whether shevat kesef (an object with monetary value) can substitute for actual kesef (money) in creating kiddushin. Rashi distinguishes between two types of betrothal: when one explicitly betrothes with money (hitkadshi b'chamishim), an appraisal is required beforehand; when one betrothes with "this object" that happens to be worth fifty, no prior appraisal is needed. The Gemara's case of "kol'du" (unspecified object) is understood by Rashi to mean hitkadshi b'pruta—betrothing with a pruta's worth—which also requires appraisal to establish that it meets even that minimal threshold.
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-b
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.
