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.
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.
