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.
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.
