A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kiddushin with an object require an appraisal beforehand? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rav Yosef and Rava, arguing that the requirement isn't about smichas das (reliance) but rather kayitz (established value). Rashi (רש"י) holds this applies only when using shaveh kesef as money, while the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach protects the woman from pressure to be moichel the difference.
This shiur explores a fundamental question in Kiddushin 7b-8a: what is the nature of the requirement for appraisal (shuma) when a man betroths a woman with shaveh kesef (an object of value)? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava. Rav Yosef holds that if someone says "Harei at mekudeshes li b'shiroi she'shevu chamishim" (betroth yourself to me with this cloak worth fifty), the woman is not mekudeshes unless there is a bekiyim (expert appraisal) beforehand—a requirement Rashi (רש"י) terms "smichas das." Rabbi Zweig challenges the very concept of smichas das in this context. Unlike other cases where smichas das operates (such as being a Kohen, Levi, or talmid chacham), here the woman can verify later whether the object is worth the stated amount. If it is worth fifty, she is married; if not, she isn't. There is no element of reliance or trust that could be violated. What, then, is the svara for requiring knowledge beforehand?
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.
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.
