A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mekadesh a woman against his will? The shiur analyzes the Baal HaIttur's position that talui bekoni is passive and thus invalid for kiddushin, contrasting it with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view. The central insight: when force means mere non-resistance (talui bezavin zvina zvina), mitzvah (מצוה) lishmah can elevate passivity to active intent, making even coerced kiddushin valid.
This shiur continues an in-depth analysis of the machlokes between the Baal HaIttur, the Rambam (רמב"ם), and the Raiva regarding whether someone acting under duress (baal korcha) can effect a valid kinyan or kiddushin. The core question is whether an act done under pressure is considered "active" or merely "passive," and what implications this has for different types of acquisitions. The Baal HaIttur holds that talui bezavin zvina zvina (when acquisition depends on the seller's will) is inherently passive. Since passivity cannot create a valid hakna'ah (transfer), kinyan kesef done under duress is invalid—because it begins with the buyer taking money, which requires the seller to actively transfer, something a passive person cannot do. By contrast, the Rambam holds that any expression of will, even under duress, is considered active. The Raiva takes a middle position: if the person explicitly says "rotzeh ani" (I want), it's active; without that statement, it remains passive.
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.
