A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a woman refuse to marry when an object's value must be evaluated later, even when she's fully protected? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s shift from kiddushin with an object to kiddushin with a fixed monetary amount. The core difficulty: if she agrees to marry only when the object is worth fifty and it turns out worth forty-nine she's not married, so what psychological commitment is lacking according to Rav Yosef's principle of semichut da'at?
This shiur presents an analysis of a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef on Kiddushin 7b concerning whether a woman is mekudeshes when the value of the kiddushin object needs to be evaluated after the betrothal. The fundamental question is what constitutes adequate semichut da'at (mental commitment/reliance) for a valid kiddushin. The shiur begins by analyzing the case as Rabbi Zweig initially understands it without Rashi (רש"י): a man says "marry me with this object that is worth fifty," and after evaluation it is indeed worth fifty—she is mekudeshes. But if it is worth only forty-nine, according to Rabba she would still be mekudeshes, while according to Rav Yosef she is not mekudeshes because ein semichut da'atan—she lacks sufficient mental commitment to marry under such uncertain conditions. The sevara would be that she doesn't want to risk being "stuck"—she agreed to marry for an object worth fifty, not forty-nine, and doesn't want to be cheated or taken advantage of.
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.
