A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be married against her will? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate between Rav Hamnuna and Mar bar Rav Ashi turns on whether kiddushin is only a kinyan (transaction) or also involves the woman becoming miyuched (consecrated) to her husband. The Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes: without rotzon to marry at all, there is no kiddushin mid'Oraisa; coercion on the ma'aseh kiddushin alone triggers afkinu rabbanan kiddushin.
Rabbi Zweig delivers a foundational shiur on Kiddushin 2a-b analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes regarding kiddushin performed under duress. The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: does kiddushin consist solely of a transactional kinyan, or does it also establish an intrinsic bond in which the woman becomes miyuched (consecrated/designated exclusively) to the man? The Gemara offers two answers to why the Mishna says "ha'isha niknis" instead of "ish koneh." The first teretz explains that saying "ish koneh" would require saying "ish makneh" to cover the reverse transaction, which is inappropriate because a husband doesn't "sell" his wife. The second teretz states that "ish koneh" would imply the man can acquire her against her will (b'al korchah), which is impermissible—hence the Mishna says "isha niknis" to emphasize it must be midaita (with her knowledge/consent).
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 2a-b
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.
