No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) reject learning kesef kiddushin from shtar and biah based on the distinction that they work bal korach while kesef does not? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s position that bal korach refers to the girl herself versus Tosafos (תוספות) who argues it means bal korach of the father. A fundamental yesod emerges: by amah ivriya, kesef creates ownership (shifcha status) while yiud creates ishus—two separate components of kiddushin that normally work together but here function independently.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 5a concerning the concept of bal korach (against one's will) in different forms of kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to learn kesef kiddushin from shtar and biah, but rejects this because those two methods work bal korach while kesef does not. However, the Gemara then cites amah ivriya where kesef does work bal korach through the mechanism of yiud. Rashi (רש"י) explains that bal korach refers to the girl being acquired against her will. Tosafos (תוספות) raises a fundamental difficulty: if bal korach means the girl's will is irrelevant, then chupah should also be bal korach, yet the Gemara later tries to learn chupah from the other kinyanim and rejects it because chupah is not bal korach while the others are. Tosafos answers that bal korach must refer to the father's consent (daas ha'av), not the girl's. By amah ivriya, the father sold her for work, not for kiddushin, yet the Torah (תורה) gave the master (adon) the right to be miyayeid her without needing to go back to the father—this is bal korach of the father.
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 5a
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.
