No community start suggestion yet.
When a woman says "give it to me" and a man responds with kiddushin, is she mekudeshes? The answer depends on whether she asked for a matana (gift) or a sale. The Rashba and Ran dispute whether a matana can create a maaseh kiddushin. The Rambam (רמב"ם) reconciles their views: in a sale context, even a single lashon works because she agreed to pay back; in a gift context, only explicit consent creates kiddushin.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Kiddushin 8b-9a concerning the language used in kiddushin transactions. The Gemara (גמרא) presents cases where a woman says "give it to me" (hava amei) and the man asks "if I give it to you, will you marry me?" followed by the woman repeating "give it to me." The Gemara rules she is ein mekudeshes (not betrothed), but the exact reasoning is disputed among the Rishonim. The Ran explains that two conditions are necessary for ein mekudeshes: both a lashon she'ela (question format) from the man as his last statement, and dibur kama k'samech (her initial statement establishing context). If only one condition exists, she would be mekudeshes. The Rashba disagrees fundamentally, arguing that since the man asked a question and she did not answer affirmatively (even shtika k'hoda'a would require silence, not a response), she remains ein mekudeshes even if he subsequently says "harei at mekudeshes li."
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 8b-9a
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.
