A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does kiddushin require explicit speech (dibur), or does intent suffice when they're engaged in the matter (asukim b'oso inyan)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question about whether yad (implied language) applies to kiddushin reveals that even though mutual intent exists, proper articulation matters—yet saying the wrong words after proper kiddushin language may not constitute retraction if clarification was still needed.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kiddushin 6a regarding whether the principle of yad (implied intent) that applies to nedarim (vows) also applies to kiddushin (betrothal). The Gemara (גמרא) asks: if one says "harei at mekudeshes li v'at" (you are betrothed to me and you), does "v'at" mean "and you too" (extending to a second woman) or "and you also" (merely emphasizing the first woman)? This question presupposes that yad—where we understand intent even without explicit language—might apply to kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig presents a powerful question from Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi (as cited in Birkas Shmuel): The Gemara establishes that when people are "asukim b'oso inyan" (engaged in discussing a particular matter), even silence (shtika) can effectuate kiddushin—no words are needed at all. If so, how can the Gemara even have a question about whether yad works for kiddushin? If both parties want to marry and their intent is clear, why should it matter whether the exact language is perfect? The very premise of the Gemara's inquiry seems contradictory.
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.
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.
