A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes using "charufasi" (language from Yehuda meaning betrothed woman) in other regions? The Gemara (גמרא)'s tension: if it's loshen hakodesh from the pasuk, why does it only work in Yehuda where people speak that way? The shiur develops the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on whether kedushin language must describe marriage itself or merely require marriage as a prerequisite.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of what language is valid for creating kiddushin (betrothal). The central case is whether saying "charufasi" (a term used in Yehuda meaning "my betrothed one") can effect kiddushin in other regions where this term is not commonly used. The Gemara presents a fundamental tension: The word "charufa" appears in the Torah (תורה)'s discussion of shifcha charufa (a maidservant betrothed to someone), which according to some opinions requires kiddushin. This would suggest it's loshen hakodesh (Biblical Hebrew) that should work universally. Yet the Gemara limits its validity to Yehuda, where people actually use this language. The question is: if we have a source in the pasuk, why should we need people to speak that way? And conversely, if it's only valid where people speak that way (Yehuda), how can it work elsewhere - "Yehuda hav'yaruba d'alma" (Yehuda is not the majority of the world)?
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.
