A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a woman remain unmarried when given an object worth exactly the amount specified, but without prior evaluation? Rashi (רש"י) reads the Gemara (גמרא) in reverse of other Rishonim: the problem isn't that she fears it's worth less, but that in kiddushin (unlike business) she expects the groom's generosity means it's worth much more. The shiur develops how this transforms kiddushin into an act requiring her active haknaa—self-transfer as an object—which fails when her daas was premised on inflated value.
This shiur delivers an intricate analysis of Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the machlokes between Rabba and Rav Yosef regarding whether kiddushin performed with an object of uncertain value requires shuma (evaluation) beforehand. Rabbi Zweig opens by outlining a series of fundamental difficulties in Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, including: what is the chiddush of the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling, why is there a lack of smichas daas (reliance/mental commitment) when the object turns out to be worth exactly what was stated, why does Rashi require explicit language of "kol duhu" (whatever it's worth), and why does Rashi switch from treating kiddushin as performed with the object itself to treating it as performed with monetary value? The shiur's core thesis is that Rashi understands the Gemara in a fundamentally opposite way from the Rambam (רמב"ם) and most Rishonim. According to the standard reading, the concern is that the object may be worth *less* than stated, undermining the woman's commitment. Rashi, however, holds that the concern is that she thinks it's worth *more*. This reading is grounded in a fundamental insight into the unique nature of kiddushin: unlike a commercial transaction (mekach u'memkar), where buyer and seller are adversarial and each tries to minimize cost or maximize gain, kiddushin is a context of generosity and good faith. A groom giving a gift understates rather than overstates its value—like giving something from Tiffany's without mentioning the price tag. Therefore, when he says "worth fifty," she naturally assumes he is being modest and the item is worth far more—perhaps five thousand. This is a rational expectation in the kiddushin context, and it creates a fundamental lack of smichas daas.
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.
