No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't Rabbi Yochanan learn kiddushin from "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah" rather than from "ba'ulat ba'al"? The shiur develops the fundamental chakira whether kiddushei kesef creates only monetary ownership (d'oraisa) while erusin status remains d'rabanan, versus Rashi (רש"י)'s position that kiddushin is fully d'oraisa. The Geonim's reading—that kesef creates real kinyan but not ervah until biah—resolves the Gemara (גמרא)'s language of "kadesh v'hadar ba'al" and explains why Chachamim can be mafkir kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 9b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of why Rabbi Yochanan learns that a ba'al enters through bi'ah from "ba'ulat ba'al" rather than from the pasuk "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah." The Gemara explains that if we learned from "ki yikach ish isha uv'alah," we would require kadesh v'hadar ba'al—first kiddushin and then bi'ah. The Gemara asks how na'arah me'orasa would then be possible, since if kadesh v'lo ba'al produces nothing, there would be no din of na'arah me'orasa. The Gemara answers that na'arah me'orasa works through shtar. Rabbi Zweig notes a striking inconsistency in Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation. Rashi writes that without bi'ah, kesef would accomplish nothing—"u'v'lo bi'ah lo mekadesh." Yet the Gemara's language consistently uses "kadesh v'hadar ba'al" (kiddushin and then bi'ah), not "nasan kesef v'hadar ba'al" (gave money and then bi'ah). This suggests that kiddushin itself accomplishes something real, even before bi'ah. Furthermore, the Gemara states "i kadesh v'lo ba'al lav klum hu," using the term "kadesh," which implies that kiddushin created some level of status, not that it was nothing at all.
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 9b
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.
