A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a man says "you are betrothed with this object worth fifty," does she need a formal appraisal? Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם) offer strikingly different readings of Rav Yosef and Rabba's dispute. The shiur argues Rashi adds "ain't mekudeshes" where the Gemara (גמרא) says only "tzarech shuma," and explores a novel yesod: her insecurity stems not from being cheated, but from her own illusion that the gift is worth more.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a core sugya in Kidushin 7b dealing with betrothal through an object whose value has not been formally appraised (shuma). The Gemara (גמרא) records a dispute between Rav Yosef and Rabba: in a case where a man says "be betrothed to me with this object worth fifty," does the woman require a formal evaluation (tzarech shuma) before the kiddushin takes effect, or not (lo tzarech shuma)? The shiur begins by noting that all agree on the extremes: when the man says "kol dehu" (whatever it's worth), no shuma is needed. But what is the case the Tannaim are actually arguing about? Rabbi Zweig highlights a fundamental tension in Rashi (רש"י)'s approach. Rashi understands that according to Rav Yosef, when the man says "harei at mekudeshes with fifty zeuz" and hands her an object without prior appraisal, she is not mekudeshes—even if it later turns out the object is indeed worth fifty. Rav Yosef holds "tzarech shuma techilah" (an appraisal was needed beforehand), and since one was not done, the kiddushin are invalid retrospectively. According to Rabba, no appraisal is needed, and the kiddushin are valid provided the object is worth the stated 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.
