A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a marriage with an object worth less than a perutah here but a perutah elsewhere create a doubtful marriage (safek mekudeshes)? The shiur analyzes the principle of shema shava perutah b'modai through multiple lenses — whether it addresses the objective monetary value requirement, the woman's subjective benefit, or the dignity (lack of genai) necessary for valid consent. The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) present fundamentally different approaches to the perutah requirement in kiddushin.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kiddushin 12a concerning the principle of shema shava perutah b'modai—when a woman is betrothed with an object worth less than a perutah locally but potentially worth a perutah in another place (Modai). The central question is why this creates a doubtful marriage (safek mekudeshes) rather than either a definite marriage or no marriage at all. Rabbi Zweig begins by raising a fundamental difficulty: the Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a woman's mother testifies that an object used for kiddushin was worth a perutah in Modai. This appears to be classic eidus on a davar shebe'ervah—testimony that would make the woman a married woman (eishes ish) to the first man. Single-witness testimony should not be believed for such matters. The Beis Shmuel is cited as asking why this isn't problematic as davar shebe'ervah, especially since according to the majority view (against Shmuel), there was no valid kiddushin initially, so the testimony is creating married status ex nihilo.
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 12a
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.
