No community start suggestion yet.
How does Kiddushin work when something worth less than a shevar prutah here is worth a prutah elsewhere? The Ran requires both that it's worth a prutah somewhere (shema sheveli prutah beModai) and the concept of didi shaveli. The shiur explores why both elements are needed and why didi shaveli alone—which works by pidyon haben—doesn't suffice for Kiddushin without preventing genai (cheapening) the woman.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the Ran's understanding of Kiddushin on daf 10a: Why does the mechanism of shema sheveli prutah beModai require BOTH that an object is worth a prutah somewhere else AND the concept of didi shaveli (subjective valuation)? If an object is genuinely worth a prutah elsewhere, why do we need didi shaveli? And conversely, if didi shaveli works—as it demonstrably does by pidyon haben, where one can subjectively value a dollar as worth five dollars—why doesn't it work by itself for Kiddushin? The Ran states that when something is worth a prutah in Modai (another place), she is mekudeshet based on a combination: it's worth money elsewhere, and since she's dakah le'isyaker (accustomed to spending that amount), we treat it as if she said didi shaveli. But the Avnei Miluim raises a powerful question: According to Beit Shammai, who require a dinar for Kiddushin, if someone gives half a dinar—which is already considered money—why wouldn't didi shaveli by itself create a vadai (certain) Kiddushin? After all, it's already money, so didi shaveli should simply elevate its subjective value to a full dinar.
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 10a
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.
