A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be acquired through debt forgiveness (mechilah) in place of giving money? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether a bride can substitute herself for an existing debt owed to her, exploring the fundamental difference between ownership acquisition and relationship-based kiddushin. The shiur develops the principle that kiddushin is not a purchase transaction—the woman does not exchange herself—which is why certain forms of monetary transfer may not effect kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7b, focusing on a fundamental question in the laws of marriage: can a man be mekadesh (marry) a woman through debt forgiveness (mechilah)? The case discussed involves a man who owes a woman money; can he marry her by saying, "Be married to me through the forgiveness of my debt to you," thereby having her forgo the debt in place of receiving actual money for kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s position that such kiddushin would not be valid because the woman "does not want to exchange herself" (ein adam rotzeh lehachlif atzmo). This principle, learned from the case of Ephron selling his field to Avrohom, establishes that a person does not want to substitute themselves in place of an obligation. The question emerges: why should we learn this principle specifically from the Ephron narrative, and what does it teach us about the nature of kiddushin?
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 7b
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.
