No community start suggestion yet.
Is the verbal declaration ("harei at mekudeshes li") in kiddushin merely to inform the woman of the husband's intent, or is it an integral part of the kinyan itself? The shiur explores Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation that places the giving before the saying, suggesting the amira creates the challos kiddushin rather than simply clarifying it. This contrasts with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach, with implications for the nature of kiddushin through kesef versus shtar.
The shiur opens with an analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation on Kiddushin 2a regarding the different expressions used for kiddushin: "harei at mikudeshes li" (for kesef and shtar) versus "hiskachi li" (for biah). Rabbi Zweig suggests that by biah, both parties participate jointly in creating the kiddushin, hence the reflexive language. By kesef, the husband performs the entire action and the wife passively accepts. However, the Gemara (גמרא) also uses "hiskachi li" for kesef when discussing "mon ha-holech" (counting money), where the woman holds part of the money and could refuse before completion, making her an active participant. A major focus is the order of events in Rashi: it appears that the nisuin (giving) precedes the amira (verbal declaration), contrary to logical expectation. Rashi says "nosen la kesef she-haveh kesef omer lo harei at mikudeshes li," suggesting he gives first, then speaks. The Rambam (רמב"ם), by contrast, says first "omer lo harei at mikudeshes li" and then "ve-nosen la befnei edim." This is the practical way we perform kiddushin today.
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
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.
