A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mekadesh a woman with money he owes her, secured by collateral? Rashi (רש"י) holds a mashkon cannot create an obligation—without pre-existing chov, there's no mashkon. The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba disagree: the mashkon does create chiyuv, but kiddushin fails because mekadesh b'milva doesn't work. Tosfos introduces a third possibility: transferring shavus (ownership value) in the mashkon itself.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 8a-b concerning whether a man can be mekadesh a woman using a mashkon (collateral) as security for money he commits to give her. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the case of a man who says "be mekudeshes to me with the mana I owe you" while giving her a mashkon to secure that obligation. The woman is not mekudeshes, but the Rishonim debate why. Rashi (רש"י) takes the position that there is fundamentally no chiyuv (obligation) here. According to Rashi, a mashkon can only serve to enforce collection of an already-existing obligation, but cannot create a new obligation. Since the man hasn't actually given her money and isn't truly obligated to give her the mana, there is no chov for the mashkon to secure. The language "hilchos mashkin ein hu shev v'klum she'ein ha-mashkin matanah" indicates that without a pre-existing obligation, the mashkon has no value or legal effect. If someone says "I will give you a present" and provides collateral, they can change their mind—the mashkon creates nothing binding.
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-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.
