A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can kiddushin work retroactively when the object's value is unknown? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading of the machlokes between Rabba and Rav Yosef on Kiddushin 7b. Kaitz doesn't mean knowing exact value; it means knowing the object can accomplish the ma'aseh kiddushin now—a requirement for any retroactive effect.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef regarding kiddushin with shaveh kesef (an object of monetary value). The shiur contrasts two major approaches: Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s radically different reading of the entire sugya. According to Rashi, the machlokes centers on whether the woman is mekudeshes at all. Rav Yosef requires shuma (evaluation) beforehand, and without prior knowledge of the object's value, there is no kiddushin whatsoever—even if it is later discovered to be worth the stated amount. Rabba holds that prior shuma is unnecessary, and once the value is confirmed, the kiddushin takes effect retroactively (lemafreia). Rashi adds the concept that when one says "kol d'hu" (whatever it's worth), everyone must know it's worth at least a shaveh pruta for the kiddushin to be valid—a detail not explicit in the Gemara's language.
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.
