A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with an object instead of money, does the kiddushin take effect immediately or only after the value is appraised? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading of the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef, revealing that the core issue is whether the stated value functions as an inducement separate from the kinyan or as an intrinsic element of it. A crucial difference emerges regarding kayetz (immediate availability): Rashi (רש"י) treats it as definitional to sheveh kesef, while the Rambam sees it as a procedural requirement for the kinyan to take effect.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of betrothing a woman with objects of value (sheveh kesef) rather than money. The central question is whether kiddushin takes effect retroactively (lemafreya) once the object's value is confirmed, or only from that point forward (mi'kan ulehaba). The Gemara presents a dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef, and the shiur explores how the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י) understand this fundamental disagreement. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Rambam's position in Hilchot Ishut. The Rambam rules that when a man betroths a woman with silk (shiroy) or similar valuable items that people are mesabeh lehem (attach importance to), the halacha (הלכה) follows Rava: ein tzarich shuma bashuk—no formal market appraisal is required, and she is mekudeshes from the outset (misheh rishon). However, for ordinary objects, the kiddushin only takes effect mi'kan ulehaba, after the value is determined. This raises a fundamental question: if the woman agrees to accept the object for kiddushin, why does it matter whether the value matches what was stated? The shiur rejects the notion of mechilah (forgiveness of the difference), arguing that kiddushin operates through kinyan, not payment. The size and nature of the kinyan must match what was specified; if the man said "fifty" and it's worth forty-nine, there is a chisar (deficiency) in the ma'aseh kinyan itself.
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.
