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.
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.
