A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need to exclude chalipin (barter) as a valid form of kiddushin when the Mishna already lists only three? Rashi (רש"י) explains that chuppah works because the father's agreement (gemirat da'at) is itself a valid kinyan, which opens the possibility that chalipin—also based on agreement—might work too. This reading reveals fundamental yesodot about what constitutes a kinyan in kiddushin and why the father can be a party to the ritual.
The shiur explores a difficult Rashi (רש"י) on Kiddushin 2b that appears to make little sense on its surface. The Gemara (גמרא) states that according to our position we exclude chuppah (from requiring a source), while according to Rav Huna we exclude chalipin (barter/exchange). Rashi comments that chalipin doesn't work for kiddushin, but his language is extremely difficult to understand—he speaks about the "lashon" (language) of chalipin versus kiddushin, when the discussion appears to be about the kinyan itself, not the language used. Rabbi Zweig begins by analyzing the fundamental question: Why does the Gemara need to exclude chalipin at all? If the Mishna lists only three ways to acquire a wife (kesef, shtar, and bi'ah), why would anyone think chalipin might work? The answer must be that there is no reason to exclude it—chalipin is so obviously inappropriate that it doesn't merit discussion. Unlike kesef and shtar, which are "religious ceremonies" or rituals specific to creating a halachic relationship, chalipin is merely a business transaction, a standard kinyan used in commercial matters. It has no place in the ritual of kiddushin.
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 2b
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.
