No community start suggestion yet.
When can shaveh kesef (goods worth money) substitute for actual kesef (money) in kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא) presents two views: Rav Yosef requires shuma (prior valuation) so the woman knows the exact value she's accepting, while Rabba holds that her acceptance itself creates the equivalence. This fundamental dispute extends to pidyon haben and eved ivri, revealing whether shaveh kesef needs an ascertainable value to function as kesef.
Rabbi Zweig delivers an intricate analysis of Kiddushin 7b-8a, focusing on the fundamental question of when shaveh kesef (goods with monetary value) can substitute for actual kesef (money) in effectuating kiddushin. The shiur explores a fundamental machloket between Rav Yosef and Rabba regarding whether shuma (valuation) must be done beforehand. The shiur begins by establishing Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of the Gemara (גמרא)'s cases. Rashi distinguishes between two scenarios: (1) saying "hiskadshi li b'chamishim" (be betrothed to me with fifty) and giving an object instead, versus (2) saying "hiskadshi li b'zu" (be betrothed to me with this) where the object happens to be worth fifty. According to Rashi, the first case requires shuma beforehand according to Rav Yosef, while the second case would not require prior shuma because you're being mekadesh with the object itself, not with a monetary value.
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-8a
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.
