A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can two men marry two women using only one peruta between them? The Gemara (גמרא)'s case of "shtei venosayich lishnei bonai bepruta" reveals a fundamental distinction: kiddushin is a religious ceremony that can be shared, not a kinyan requiring separate monetary exchanges. This explains why what works for kiddushin cannot work for buying two cows.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 7b regarding the case of "shtei venosayich lishnei bonai bepruta" — a father who has two daughters and marries them to two sons using only one peruta. The Gemara presents a fundamental question: do we follow "basar noisen" (after the giver) or "basar mekabel" (after the receiver)? If we follow basar noisen, each man gave only half a peruta, which should invalidate the kiddushin. If we follow basar mekabel, the kiddushin may be valid in doubt. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagree on the mechanics of this case. Rashi appears to suggest that the boys can be adults who appoint their father as their agent (shaliach), using their own money. Tosafos objects that if the girls are adults (gedolos), the father would have to be their agent, and this would require two full perutas (one for each). Therefore, Tosafos concludes the case must involve minor daughters (ketanos) where the father receives kiddushin on their behalf by Torah (תורה) law. Tosafos also states that the Gemara's formulation "basar noisen" is not precise (lav davka).
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 7b
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.
