A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman's silence after receiving kiddushin money constitute acceptance? The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 12b-13a's debate: does silence mean she accepts (because she didn't throw it away), or does she need affirmative agreement? The Gemara (גמרא)'s logic that "she should have thrown it away" challenges fundamental assumptions about what kiddushin requires.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 12b-13a dealing with the fundamental question of shtika l'achar matan maos—whether a woman's silence after receiving kiddushin money constitutes valid kiddushin. The discussion revolves around a seeming contradiction in the Gemara's reasoning and what it reveals about the nature of kiddushin itself. Rabbi Zweig begins by framing two opposing approaches to understanding shtika (silence). One view (represented by "Avi" in the discussion) holds that kiddushin requires affirmative acceptance from the woman; therefore, neutral silence without agreement is insufficient, and shtika l'achar matan maos is not valid kiddushin. The alternative view (represented by "Eli" and "Yonatan") argues that silence after receiving kiddushin money is actually like rejection—since the original giving was not l'shem kedusha (for the sake of marriage), the continued holding without explicit acceptance shows she doesn't want it.
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 12b-13a
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.
