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 whose value he states but which may not be worth what he claims, is she betrothed? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef on whether expert appraisal (shuma) is required, exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the requirement depends on whether the man specified a monetary value or simply gave the object itself.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 7b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether a woman becomes betrothed when a man gives her an object for kiddushin but its actual value is uncertain. The central dispute is between Rava, who holds "lo tzrich shuma" (no expert appraisal is needed), and Rav Yosef, who holds "tzrich shuma" (expert appraisal is required). The Gemara introduces this dispute in the context of a case where someone says "Harei at mekudeshes li b'chamishim" (behold you are betrothed to me with fifty) and gives an object, but the object's actual worth is unclear. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of the basic case. According to Rashi, when the man says "I am betrothing you with fifty zuz" and gives her an object, he wants the object to be taken as payment for the fifty zuz. The question is whether this requires a formal shuma (expert appraisal) beforehand. Rashi explains that Rav Yosef requires that the appraisal be done before the kiddushin takes place - if no appraisal was done beforehand, she is not betrothed even if we later discover the object was indeed worth fifty. Rava disagrees and holds that no prior appraisal is needed because "we know what it's worth."
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.
