No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of the kal vachomer proving shtar works for kiddushin, and what kind of shtar is the Gemara (גמרא) discussing? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rashbam (Rivdaz) over whether kiddushin functions as hilchos kinyanim (property acquisition law) or as a religious ceremony (maaseh pidyon/issur-heter). The discussion clarifies Rashi's position on shtar adme'i and explores the principle of ein kategan na'aseh saneigor.
The shiur opens with a detailed analysis of the sugya in Kiddushin 5a regarding whether shtar works for kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) brings a kal vachomer: since shtar is motzi (works for divorce) while kesef is not, and kesef is machnis (works for kiddushin), surely shtar should also be machnis. The first fundamental question is: what is the logic of this kal vachomer? Is it comparing shtar to kesef (shtar is superior to kesef), or is it comparing motzi to machnis (being motzi is harder than being machnis)? The Rivdaz (Rashbam) argues that the kal vachomer is based on the principle that being motzi (releasing from issur) is more difficult than being machnis (creating issur), since motzi involves matir issur (permitting the forbidden) while machnis only involves assur mutar (forbidding the permitted). Therefore, if shtar can accomplish the harder task (motzi), it should certainly accomplish the easier one (machnis). However, Rabbi Zweig challenges this reading as unprecedented—kal vachomer arguments do not typically require detailed reasoning of this sort; they rely on demonstrated facts, not philosophical principles about the relative difficulty of halachic acts.
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.
