A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes an object worth a certain value for kiddushin or pidyon haben when its market price is lower? The shiur analyzes the principle of "lididi shaveh li" (to me it's worth it), comparing Rashi (רש"י)'s approach—requiring explicit valuation even when actual worth is clear—with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that subjective value can create halachic worth. The machloket between Rav Yosef and Rabbi centers on whether uncertain value requires formal assessment.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the halachic concept of "lididi shaveh li" (to me it is worth) and how subjective valuation affects the validity of kiddushin and pidyon haben. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether an object worth less than a perutah in market value can nevertheless serve as valid kesef kiddushin or payment for pidyon haben if the recipient values it at the required amount. The shiur begins by examining the fundamental dispute between Rav Yosef and Rabbi regarding kayitz (evaluation/assessment). According to Rashi (רש"י), the machlokes concerns whether one must explicitly state the value of an object even when it is clearly worth a shaveh perutah. Rav Yosef holds that without kayitz—without explicitly attributing value—the kiddushin is invalid even if the object is objectively worth a perutah. Rabbi disagrees, holding that explicit valuation is unnecessary when the value is clear. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם), however, the entire dispute applies only when we are uncertain whether the object reaches the threshold of a perutah; if we know it's worth a perutah, everyone agrees it's valid.
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 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.
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.
