No community start suggestion yet.
Does kiddushin require the husband to give a value of a sheve pruta, or is it sufficient that the wife receives that value? The shiur explores whether the monetary requirement in kiddushin parallels ordinary commercial kinyanim or reflects a unique ceremonial status, examining Rashi (רש"י)'s reading of the case where a man marries with silk "worth fifty".
This shiur examines a fundamental question in the laws of kiddushin discussed in Kiddushin 7b: does the requirement that kiddushin be accomplished with a sheve pruta mean the husband must give an object worth that amount to him, or is it sufficient that the wife receives something worth a sheve pruta to her, even if it costs him less? The shiur opens with a practical case: a woman who is deathly ill may eat non-kosher food that has no value to a healthy person. If a healthy man gives such food to a sick woman for kiddushin, saying "Harei at mekudeshes li b'zeh," is she married? To him the object is worthless, but to her it has value. The Rishonim debate whether the sheve pruta standard is measured by the giver or the recipient. One possibility is that kiddushin differs fundamentally from other kinyanim—it is primarily a religious ceremony rather than a commercial transaction, so the husband's "down payment" need not have monetary significance to him.
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.
