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.
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.
