No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't kiddushin work through kinyan chalipin? The Gemara (גמרא) rules chalipin is ineffective for kiddushin, raising Rashi (רש"י)'s cryptic comment about "lashon kinyan" versus "lashon kiddushin." The shiur also analyzes the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Geonim on orlah and revai in Chutz La'aretz, exploring Rabbeinu Chaim's approach to halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai.
This shiur examines two major sugyos from Kiddushin 2b. The primary focus is on the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that kinyan chalipin cannot create kiddushin. The opening discussion analyzes an aggadic Gemara about the esrog's unique status regarding orlah, revai, and shevi'is, where the esrog is treated as a tree for some halachos but as a vegetable for others. The shiur then turns to Tosafos (תוספות)'s complex discussion about netar revai (individual fruit trees subject to revai) versus kerem revai (vineyards subject to revai). Tosafos raises whether netar revai applies in Chutz La'aretz, suggesting two possible answers: either only kerem revai applies biblically (making netar revai rabbinic), or all agree netar revai exists rabbinically even outside of Eretz Yisrael. The practical difference (nafka mina) would be whether netar revai applies in Chutz La'aretz today, since we follow the lenient position regarding laws outside Eretz Yisrael.
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 2b
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.
