No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes with a mashkin (collateral) when no money has changed hands? The shiur analyzes three fundamental approaches to the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling "mona ain kan, mashkin ain kan" — Rashi (רש"י) (no obligation exists), the Rashba (it's a loan, not kiddushin), and the Rimagash (no kinyan without payment) — exploring when collateral acquires value and whether intention for kiddushin changes the status.
This shiur provides an intricate analysis of Kiddushin 8a-b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s case of "hiskachi liba mona v'ni achlu mashkin alei" — a man who promises a woman money for kiddushin and gives her collateral (mashkin) to hold until he pays. The Gemara rules she is not mekudeshes, stating "mona ain kan, mashkin ain kan" (there is no money here, there is no collateral here). The shiur presents three fundamentally different approaches to understanding this ruling. **Rashi (רש"י)'s Approach: No Obligation, Therefore No Value**
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 8a-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.
