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 (like silk garments), must he specify its exact value, or is saying "with whatever they are worth" (kol du) sufficient? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rav and Rav Yosef about whether betrothal is valid when the stated value doesn't match reality. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s two interpretations and explores the concept of smichas das—the woman's genuine consent based on accurate expectations.
The shiur examines Kiddushin 7b, focusing on a critical case: a man betroths a woman using silk garments (shiroi) with a stated value. The central machloket is between Rav (who holds lo tzrich ishuma—no appraisal is needed) and Rav Yosef (who holds tzrich ishuma—an appraisal is required). The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when the man says "bekol du" (with whatever they are worth), both agree the betrothal is valid. The dispute arises when he assigns a specific monetary value to the object. Rashi (רש"י) presents two interpretations. In his first explanation, Rashi indicates that "bekol du" requires actually saying those words (or something equivalent like "behen" or "kemosha hen"). The person must explicitly indicate that he is betrothing her with the object at its actual worth, whatever that may be. Without such language, there would be grounds for dispute. The question arises: what exactly constitutes saying "kol du"? Does it mean literally those words, or any formulation that conveys the concept of "whatever this is worth"?
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
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.
