No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use two formulations—"ha'isha niknis" and "ha'ish mekadesh"—for the same kiddushin? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: is kiddushin a kinyan (acquisition) or an issur chalah (prohibition taking effect on the woman)? This dual nature explains the language and resolves apparent contradictions in Tosfos's pircha regarding whether shaveh kesef equals kesef in kiddushin, nezikin, and eved Ivri.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the opening sugya of Masechta Kiddushin (2a-b), focusing on the dual nature of kiddushin as both a kinyan (acquisition) and an issur (prohibition). Rabbi Zweig begins by addressing the Maharsha's question on Tosfos and the Achiezer Yosef's kashya regarding why we can learn shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) equals kesef (money) in kiddushin from either eved Ivri (Jewish servant) or nezikin (damages), given that each has its own limitations. The core insight distinguishes between two entirely different applications of shaveh kesef. In nezikin and eved Ivri, shaveh kesef serves to replace an original object—you damaged tomatoes, so you must restore their value; you owned a servant, so you must provide something of value to redeem him. The question there is whether shaveh kesef can adequately replace the original object, with concerns about putting an extra burden (tircha) on the victim to convert commodities back into the original form. The Torah (תורה)'s requirement of "meitav" (best quality) in nezikin reflects this concern—the victim should receive something easily convertible to cash.
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-b
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.
