No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) presents contradictory inferences about whether kiddushin requires both giving *and* speaking by the man. Rashi (רש"י) offers two approaches: the first holds that amira is an essential component of the ma'aseh kiddushin (he didn't do enough); the second holds that her speaking ruins an otherwise valid kiddushin (she did something wrong). Tosfos challenges the Gemara's inquiry by asking why it didn't consider the reverse case.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of who must perform the giving (nesina) and the verbal declaration (amira) for kiddushin to be valid. The Gemara presents two Mishnayos that yield contradictory inferences (maskna d'arapah petaimi de nasan hu v'amar hu). The Reisha suggests that if he gave and she spoke (nasan hu v'amra hi), the kiddushin would not be valid. The Seifa, however, seems to suggest the opposite—that such an arrangement might work. Rabbi Zweig carefully unpacks the various possibilities for understanding why nasan hu v'amra hi might or might not be valid. On the side that it should be good, there are several approaches: (1) Perhaps the giving (nesina) is the essential element (ikur), and her speaking doesn't ruin anything; (2) Perhaps the principle of shtika k'hoda'a (silence is agreement) means that when he gives and is silent, it's as if he spoke too (nasan hu v'amar hu); (3) Perhaps a joint ma'aseh kiddushin—where both parties participate in the nesina and amira—could be valid.
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.
