A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use feminine language ("three ways") when Torah (תורה) typically uses masculine? The Gemara (גמרא) explains that "derech" (way) is feminine—unlike war (masculine activity), Torah itself is a chefetz (object) independent of its learners. The shiur explores how this linguistic analysis connects to the three methods of kiddushin and whether chuppah or chalipah should be included.
This shiur analyzes the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 2a-b, which discusses why the Mishna states "ishah niknas b'shalosh derochim" (a woman is acquired in three ways) using feminine language when Torah (תורה) generally uses masculine. The Gemara explains that the word "derech" is feminine, citing the pasuk "Torat Hashem (ה׳) temimah" which uses feminine language for Torah. However, the Gemara also finds instances where "derech" appears in masculine form, such as in the context of war ("yotzer lecha derech"). Tosfos asks a fundamental question: if the entire Torah is written in masculine language ("kol haTorah kulah b'lashon zachor"), why use feminine here? The Gemara resolves this by distinguishing between the chefetz (object) and the gavra (person). Torah itself is an independent entity—a system of divine truths that exists regardless of who studies it. Therefore, when referring to Torah as an object, feminine language is appropriate. In contrast, war is not an independent chefetz but rather an activity performed by men, hence it takes masculine language.
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 2a-b
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.
