A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a woman be mekudeshes when she hasn't received money and the groom hasn't given any? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of "shebud u'makne nafsha"—that the woman's self-imposed obligation (like an arev) simultaneously creates acquisition. A complex exploration of din shneim emerges: whose money is being used, who owes whom, and how mechilah on behalf of another creates valid kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the case of "Tain mana laploni v'kadish ani loch"—where a woman tells a man to give money to a third party and she will be mekudeshes. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that she is mekudeshes midin arev (from the law of guarantorship), even though she did not receive the money directly, because "ka'meshabed nafsheh"—she has created a lien on herself. The Gemara makes a fundamental chiddush beyond simple arev: not only is she meshabbed (obligated), but she is "makne nafsheh"—she effects a transfer of herself. This dual mechanism is critical. In ordinary arev, when someone tells you to lend money on their behalf, they become obligated to repay you. But in kiddushin, the shiur explains, something additional happens: the discharge of that shebud itself becomes the kesef kiddushin. She is not merely obligated to pay money; rather, in lieu of that obligation, she is makneh herself to the groom.
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 7a
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.
