A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a man betroths a woman with an object claiming "this is worth fifty," when must expert appraisal (shuma) occur? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Yosef (shuma required beforehand) and Rava (shuma can happen later) and explores Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding that the issue centers on whether the monetary value itself constitutes the act of kiddushin or merely reflects the object's worth.
This shiur delves deeply into a complex sugya on Kiddushin 7b concerning the requirement of smichas da'as (reliance/confidence) when a man betroths a woman with an object while specifying its value. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a man says "Harei at mekudeshes li b'chamishim" (You are betrothed to me with fifty [zuz]) and gives her an object. The central dispute is between Rav Yosef, who requires that expert appraisers (shuma) evaluate the object before the kiddushin takes effect, and Rava, who permits the appraisal to occur afterward. Rabbi Zweig begins by exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, which presents significant textual challenges. According to Rashi, the only case where everyone agrees no shuma is required is when the man explicitly says "b'chol dahu" (with whatever this is worth). This reading creates difficulties because the Gemara appears to skip intermediate cases: what if the man says nothing at all (stam), or what if he says "this object that is worth fifty"? The shiur works through how Rashi understands these missing cases and why the Gemara focuses specifically on the case where the groom assigns a specific monetary value.
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.
