A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the kal vachomer work to prove that shtair can be used for kiddushin? The shiur explores whether the argument runs from kesef to shtair (both as kinyanim) or from gittin to kiddushin, and whether gittin functions as a hachnah (acquisition) or as an independent instrumentality of divorce. This determines how to read the Gemara (גמרא)'s subsequent hekesh and the principle of kateigor na'aseh saneigor.
The shiur conducts a close analysis of Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s attempt to prove through a kal vachomer that shtair (a document) can effect kiddushin. The central question is: what is the structure of this kal vachomer, and what does it reveal about the underlying nature of kiddushin and gittin? Rabbi Zweig presents two possible ways to understand the kal vachomer. The first approach, attributed to Rashi (רש"י), is that the argument runs from kesef to shtair: since kesef works for kiddushin, and shtair has advantages over kesef (e.g., you can write on paper but not on metal), kal vachomer shtair should also work. According to this reading, the Gemara assumes from the outset that kiddushin is a kinyan (an acquisition), and the question is whether shtair—like kesef—can serve as a vehicle for that kinyan. Rashi's approach implies that the Gemara is comparing two modes of kinyan, not two institutions (marriage and divorce).
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 5a
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.
