A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes using a dialect understood only in one region when the kiddushin occurs elsewhere? The Gemara (גמרא) rules that saying "charufa" (the Yehuda term for erusin) is invalid outside Yehuda, leading the Mishnah (משנה) Berurah to argue language must match location even for kiddushin. The shiur challenges this ruling: since kiddushin doesn't require formal speech—only mutual intent—why shouldn't it work when all parties understand, like a sukkah b'sunya?
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, which discusses whether a woman can be mekudeshes using the term "charufa," a word used in Yehuda to mean erusin (betrothal). The Gemara (גמרא) states that if someone says "charufa" in Yehuda, she is mekudeshes because that is the local term for betrothal. However, the Gemara implies that outside Yehuda—such as in the Galil—this term would not create a valid kiddushin, even though the parties might understand the intent. The Mishnah (משנה) Berurah (Hilchos Krias Shema, section 62) derives from this Gemara a far-reaching principle: a language is only valid in the location where it is spoken. He applies this to Krias Shema, ruling that one cannot be yotzei Krias Shema in English while in France, because English is not the language of France. Only the local language has halachic validity in that location. The Mishnah Berurah brings proof from this Gemara in Kiddushin: just as "charufa" is invalid outside Yehuda, so too any language is invalid outside its native region.
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 6a
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.
Up Next in this Series
Why is the third book called simply 'And He called' and why did only Moshe hear God's voice? The shiur distinguishes between dibur (articulated speech) and kol (voice) - where kol represents projecting one's essence rather than communicating words. In Vayikra, God projects His actual presence to Moshe, and the korban system becomes our imperfect way of projecting ourselves back to Him.
Why did God command sacrifices of sheep, goats, and cattle specifically? The Rambam argues they countered idolatrous worship of these animals, while the Ramban objects that sacrifices existed before idolatry and serve as substitutes for the sinner. The shiur synthesizes both views: korbanot redirect the intense emotional connection idolaters felt toward these animals into genuine service of God.
If God is perfect and lacks nothing, why does He need our service, and how can we be rewarded for doing something that doesn't benefit Him? A Midrash about God's incomplete garden reveals that Hashem created a genuine need for our varied mitzvahs as the foundation of existence itself. This enables us to be independent beings worthy of reward rather than mere extensions of the Divine.
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.
