A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When the Gemara (גמרא) debates whether to compare shtar kiddushin to get (requiring lishmah) or kesef kiddushin (not requiring lishmah), what is the underlying question? The shiur develops that the dispute is not about transferring specific laws between kinyanim, but about defining whether shtar kiddushin is merely a kinyan or also contains a religious element—a framework that resolves major Acharonim's questions about the hekesh havaya.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 8a's fundamental discussion of whether shtar kiddushin requires lishmah (being written "for her sake"). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two possible hekeshim (comparisons): either learn from get (which requires lishmah) that shtar kiddushin also needs lishmah, or learn from kesef kiddushin (which doesn't require lishmah) that shtar kiddushin doesn't need it. Rashi (רש"י) explains that kesef doesn't require lishmah, and the Gemara concludes we learn from get because that's the ikar din of shtar. The shiur raises a fundamental question about the meaning of "lishmah" by kesef. What would it even mean for kesef to require lishmah? The coin itself cannot be written "for her sake"—you're being mekadesh her with the monetary value, not with any inscription on the coin. This creates a conceptual problem: if kesef lishmah makes no sense whatsoever, how could the Gemara have initially suggested learning that shtar doesn't need lishmah from the fact that kesef doesn't need it? And conversely, if lishmah is fundamentally inapplicable to kesef, how can the Gemara's conclusion—that we should reverse the hekesh and say shtar needs lishmah—be meaningful?
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 8a
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.
