A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't "hareini balech" (I am your husband) work as a valid formula for kiddushin, when the end result seems identical to "harei at mekudeshes li"? The shiur works through Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding that the means of achieving kiddushin matter, not just the result—the man must "take" the woman (ki yikach), not position himself as taken. This leads to a broader exploration of borderline kiddushin language and the tension between requiring explicit statement versus accepting implied intent.
This shiur on Kiddushin 5b-6a examines Rashi (רש"י)'s position on invalid formulations of kiddushin, particularly focusing on the expression "hareini balech" (I am your husband) and similar language. Rabbi Zweig begins by probing why this formulation should be invalid according to Rashi, who considers it a "chisaron" (deficiency) rather than completely ineffective. The fundamental question is: if the end result is identical to "harei at mekudeshes li" (you are betrothed to me)—namely, that he owns her—why should the formulation matter? The shiur develops the understanding that kiddushin requires not just the correct result but the correct process. The Torah (תורה)'s language "ki yikach ish ishah" (when a man takes a woman) establishes that the man must actively acquire the woman, not present himself as being acquired by her. Even though "hareini balech" might achieve the same legal relationship, the mechanism described by the language is backwards—it positions the man as moving toward the woman or offering himself, rather than taking her. This explains why Rashi considers it deficient: the ma'aseh (action) described doesn't match the required structure of kiddushin, even if the intended result is correct.
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 5b-6a
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.
