A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man is mekadesh a woman with an object "worth fifty," must the value be assessed beforehand? The Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes between Rav and Rav Yosef hinges on semichas da'as—whether the woman relies on his stated value. The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s reading of the case (kiddushin with money versus the object itself), challenges his interpretation with multiple kashas, and explores how the Tosafos (תוספות) and Rambam (רמב"ם) understand the mechanism of deferred evaluation.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes in Kiddushin 7b regarding whether an appraisal (shuma) is required when a man is mekadesh a woman with an object whose value he specifies. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a man was mekadesh with shiroy (silk garments), and Rav holds lo tzrich shuma (no appraisal needed beforehand), while Rav Yosef requires shuma. Rabbi Zweig begins by identifying a difficulty in Rashi (רש"י)'s reading: when Rav Yosef says "tzrich shuma," Rashi interprets this not as a procedural requirement to perform an appraisal, but as a legal principle stating that since shuma is necessary and was not done, the kiddushin is invalid (ein ha'mekudeshes). This is a departure from the straightforward reading where "tzrich shuma" would mean "go ahead and make a shuma." The shiur raises four fundamental questions on the Gemara and Rashi's interpretation. First, the Gemara discusses a case where the man says "kol dahu"—meaning "whatever it's worth"—and states that everyone agrees no shuma is needed. Why does the Gemara need to mention this obvious case? If he explicitly says the value doesn't matter, what possible requirement for shuma could there be? Second, the Gemara says that if he states "fifty" and it's not worth fifty, she's not mekudeshes. Again, this seems obvious—why state it? Third, what is the nature of the "chasar semichas da'as" (lack of reliance) that Rav Yosef sees in the case where he says fifty? If she's willing to be mekudeshes for fifty and will only be married if it's actually worth fifty, where is the problem of semichas da'as? She gets exactly what she bargained for or she's not married. Fourth, how does the Gemara's language fit together—particularly the relationship between saying "kol dahu" and specifying an amount?
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.
