A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does kiddushin require the woman's active affirmation, or is her passive acceptance sufficient? The Gemara (גמרא) explores cases where a woman throws away money, gives it to her father, or accepts it under unclear circumstances. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) debate whether kiddushin is a unilateral act requiring only the absence of rejection (Rashi) or a bilateral agreement requiring the woman's clear assent (Tosafos).
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 8b–9a, focusing on the fundamental nature of kinyan kiddushin and the role of the woman's acceptance. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a series of cases that test whether kiddushin requires the woman's active affirmation or whether her passive acceptance—the absence of rejection—is sufficient. The shiur begins with the case of a woman who throws the kiddushin money into the sea. The Gemara initially suggests that perhaps she is testing the man's temper to see if he is a "raschan" (quick-tempered), and therefore the kiddushin might still be valid since she doesn't intend to reject him outright. The Gemara ultimately rejects this, teaching that we need to see some form of acceptance from the woman for kiddushin to take effect. This leads to a fundamental question: Is kiddushin a unilateral act performed by the man (with the woman merely passive), or is it a bilateral agreement requiring her active participation?
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.
