No community start suggestion yet.
Does a yad (implied expression) in kiddushin constitute precise communication or merely a general indication of intent? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket between the Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם): the Ran holds that yad is true communication but must be obvious for kiddushin's ma'aseh requirement, while the Rambam holds yad is imprecise—insufficient to distinguish "I am marrying you" from "Do you want to marry me?" This debate reframes the entire sugya of "ve'at" in kiddushin.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s question of whether yesh yad l'kidushin (whether implied language works for kiddushin), focusing on the fundamental dispute between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) in understanding both the case and the underlying principles. The Gemara discusses a case where someone says to woman A "harei at mekudeshes li" (behold you are betrothed to me) and then says "ve'at" to woman B. The question is whether woman B becomes betrothed through this implied language (yad). The Ran understands this as a straightforward case where the man gave money to woman A and said "ve'at" to woman B who was observing. The question is whether the yad—the implied intention—creates kiddushin for woman B.
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!
Nedarim (specific daf unclear)
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.
