No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when a woman receives kiddushin with an object worth less than a perutah locally but possibly worth a perutah elsewhere? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes Shmuel's position that we must suspect it has value in Modi, creating a safek kiddushin. The shiur wrestles with what "checking" the value means, when that check matters, and why testimony about past value is or isn't believed—raising fundamental questions about chazakah, time-bound evaluations, and creating an eishet ish status.
The shiur opens with Shmuel's statement that if someone gives a date as kiddushin, even if dates are extremely cheap locally—a kor of dates for a dinar—we still treat her as mekudeshes because "chayashinan shema shava perutah b'modai" (we suspect it may be worth a perutah in Modi). The Gemara (גמרא)'s language suggests this creates a safek kiddushin: she needs a get because perhaps it is worth a perutah elsewhere. The Gemara challenges this from a Mishna stating that the minimum for kiddushin is a perutah or "shever perutah." If we always suspect it might be worth a perutah somewhere else, why would anything less than a shever perutah ever fail to create kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig presents the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position: the object must actually be capable of reaching that other marketplace—it must be preservable (like dried fruit) and transportable. If spoilage or impracticality prevents the object from reaching Modi, then it cannot create even a safek kiddushin. The shiur asks a pointed question on this view: if certain objects cannot reach Modi and therefore have a shiur of shever perutah, why does the Mishna's language seem so universal? The Lechem Mishneh is cited as raising this difficulty; the shiur critiques the proposed answer as somewhat forced.
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 12a-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.
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.
