A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kiddushin require actual kesef and not shaveh kesef (equivalent value)? The shiur explores Tosfos's fundamental question: whether the limitation stems from shaveh kesef lacking intrinsic value, or from the ritual requirement of a constant, unchanging object. This analysis contrasts Tosfos's approach with other Rishonim and examines how klal u'prat u'klal and the principle of lidei shaveh create value.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Tosfos on Kiddushin 2a regarding the principle of shaveh kesef k'kesef (items equivalent in value to money being treated as money). The fundamental question is why we need a special limud to know that shaveh kesef works for kiddushin, eved ivri, and other ritual contexts. Rabbi Zweig begins with a basic question on Tosfos: If we learn kiddushin from the kinyan of karka (real estate), and by karka itself shaveh kesef works (as we see from the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion), why would Tosfos suggest that kiddushin should require actual kesef and not shaveh kesef? The very source from which we learn—karka—already demonstrates that shaveh kesef is valid. Furthermore, Tosfos brings proof from eved ivri that we need a pasuk for shaveh kesef, yet he seems to overlook the explicit klal u'prat u'klal by pidyon haben that already teaches this principle.
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 2a
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.
