No community start suggestion yet.
Is kesef kiddushin a kinyan (acquisition) or merely a religious ritual? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether it matters who gives the money and who says the formula. Rashi (רש"י)'s first approach treats kesef as a ritual showing mutual commitment—not a transfer of ownership—making the speaker's role the crucial factor, not the giver of the money.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b, which presents the Mishna's basic formulation of kiddushin through kesef (money): "Nasan la kesef o sheveh kesef, v'amar lo harei at mekudeshes li"—he gave her money or its equivalent and said, "You are betrothed to me." The Gemara (גמרא) explores a fundamental question: what is the nature of the kesef in kiddushin? Is it a kinyan (legal acquisition mechanism) or a religious ritual? The Braisa presents two cases that appear contradictory. The Reisha states that if he gives money and he makes the declaration, she is mekudeshes. The Seifa states that if she gives money and she makes the declaration, she is not mekudeshes. The Gemara initially suggests "kedai nazbah"—the Seifa is merely amplifying the Reisha—but rejects this as inappropriate when the Seifa contradicts the Reisha. The real question emerges: what about the intermediate case of "nasan hu v'omrah hi" (he gives the money but she makes the declaration)?
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
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.
