A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What value must an object have to effect kiddushin? The shiur analyzes the machloket between Rava and Rav Yosef on whether appraisal (shuma) must occur before or after kiddushin. According to the Rambam (רמב"ם), the debate centers on kayitz (objective monetary value) versus smichas daas (subjective acceptance), and whether sheve kesef must represent actual cash value or merely perceived worth.
This shiur explores the gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7b-8a concerning the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding whether kiddushin can be effected with an object whose value is uncertain. The fundamental question is whether one needs shuma (appraisal) before the kiddushin or whether appraisal afterward suffices. The shiur frames two distinct interpretations of how the Rambam (רמב"ם) understands this sugya. According to the lashon kama (first version) in the gemara, Rava and Rav Yosef argue about smichas daas—whether the woman must knowingly accept something of known value. Rashi (רש"י) understands this as requiring that at the moment of kiddushin, both parties know the object's worth. The Rambam, however, introduces a critical distinction: the case of shiroin (silks and fine garments) is unique because a woman inherently desires such items, thereby eliminating concerns of smichas daas. For other objects, even according to Rava who holds ein tzorech shuma, there remains a deficiency in smichas daas that must be resolved.
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-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.
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.
