No community start suggestion yet.
Can kiddushin performed in one location using the dialect of another location be valid? The Mishnah (משנה) Berurah's position that language must match the locale creates a fundamental problem: kiddushin doesn't require formal speech, only mutual understanding and witnesses who comprehend the intent. The shiur explores whether toch k'dei dibur can bridge thought (machshava) and action when dialect obscures meaning.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, focusing on a fundamental question about language and kiddushin raised by the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah in Siman Samach Beis. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether saying "harufa" (a term used in Yehuda for betrothal) would create a valid kiddushin outside of Yehuda, such as in the Galil or in Italy, where the term has a different meaning or no meaning at all. The Mishnah Berurah derives from this Gemara that a language only has validity (kashrus) in the place where it is spoken. He applies this principle not only to kiddushin but also to Krias Shema, arguing that one cannot fulfill the obligation of Krias Shema by reciting it in English while in France, since English is not the language of that locale. According to the Mishnah Berurah, language must correspond to the makom (place) where it is being used.
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 6a
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.
