No community start suggestion yet.
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.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 2b, exploring the dual nature of the marriage bond in Jewish law. The primary focus is understanding why the Mishna uses different terminology—sometimes "kinyan" (acquisition) and sometimes "kiddushin" (sanctification)—when describing how marriage is effected. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara's question about linguistic consistency. The Gemara asks why the first Mishna doesn't use "kinyan" terminology throughout if marriage is fundamentally an acquisition. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) are presented as offering different frameworks for understanding this question. According to Rashi, the Gemara is asking about appropriate terminology—which language better captures the essence of marriage. According to Tosafos, the question runs deeper, touching on the fundamental nature of the marriage bond itself.
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 2b
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.
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.
Why does a nesuah (married woman) eat terumah while an aruseh (betrothed woman) does not, if both involve kinyan kaspo? The Gemara analyzes whether chupah creates a stronger kinyan or introduces a new din of ishut (living together). The discussion explores the machlokes Rav and Shmuel about yibum be'oness, and how the Rambam understands both kinyan and ishut working together in chupah.
