A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman using language describing the essence of marriage rather than the mechanics of acquisition, is the kiddushin valid? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses three categories of formulations: those describing the act of acquisition, those describing its result, and those describing the divine purpose of marriage itself. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between a safek in halacha (הלכה) (existential doubt) and a safek in metzius (factual uncertainty) to understand the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin exploring what constitutes valid language for kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents multiple lists of formulations, some clearly valid and others whose status is uncertain. Rabbi Zweig develops a comprehensive framework for understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to this sugya, fundamentally different from Rashi (רש"י)'s reading. The Gemara discusses three categories of kiddushin formulations. The first category uses clear mechanics of acquisition: "Harei at mekudeshes li" (Behold you are betrothed to me) or "Harei at m'oreshes li" (Behold you are engaged to me). These are universally accepted as valid. The second category describes the result of kiddushin rather than the act itself: "Harei at ishti" (Behold you are my wife) or "Harei at arusasi" (Behold you are my betrothed). The Gemara establishes that even without describing the mechanics of acquisition, if one accurately describes the result, the kiddushin is valid. The third category uses language describing the divine purpose and essence of marriage as established with Adam and Chava: "miuchedes" (designated/special), "ezrosi" (my helpmate), "negdosi" (opposite me), and similar terms drawn from the creation narrative.
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 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.
