No community start suggestion yet.
Who must give the money and say the declaration in kiddushin, and why? The Gemara (גמרא)'s cases of nasan hu v'amara hu, nasan hu v'amara hi, and nasan hi v'amara hi expose a fundamental question: Is amira (the verbal declaration) merely an explanation of what occurred, or is it the essential act of kiddushin itself? Rashi (רש"י) and the Rashba offer two radically different frameworks.
This shiur delivers a deep analysis of Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Mishna's teaching about how a woman is acquired through kesef (money), shtar (document), or biah (relations), and the Gemara (גמרא)'s exploration of the role of amira (verbal declaration) in the act of kiddushin. The central question is whether amira is merely a way to clarify what transpired, or whether it is the core maaseh kiddushin itself. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to the Mishna. Rashi explains that the Mishna is teaching the minimum requirements for the maaseh kinyan—the act of acquisition—not the full requirements for creating the chalos ishus (the legal status of marriage). According to Rashi, the kinyan kesef requires amira and an action (kesef or giving), but it does not require eidim (witnesses), because eidim are needed for the chalos ishus, not for the kinyan itself. Rashi holds that the Mishna is focused on how the kinyan works, not on how to create the complete marriage status.
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 5b
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.
