A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a father truly own his daughter, or does he merely have a legal right to her earnings and kiddushin money? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that kiddushin involves actual ownership, contrasting it with Rashi (רש"י)'s view. This fundamental dispute shapes the entire discussion of who receives kiddushin money and how the father-daughter relationship differs from ownership of an eved ivri.
This shiur on Kiddushin 4a addresses fundamental questions about the nature of kiddushin and the father's relationship to his daughter. The primary focus is on understanding Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that a father truly owns his daughter, as opposed to Rashi (רש"י)'s view that the father merely has specific rights (zechusim) to her earnings and kiddushin money without actual ownership. Rabbi Zweig opens by clarifying Tosafos's approach to the Gemara (גמרא)'s havamina (initial assumption) and maskana (conclusion). According to Tosafos, the Gemara's initial assumption was that kiddushin is an issur (prohibition-based matter) rather than mamona (monetary matter), which would allow learning kiddushin from haforat nedarim (annulment of vows) despite the principle that mamona mi'issura lo yalfinan (we don't derive monetary laws from prohibition-based laws). The Gemara's conclusion, however, is that kiddushin is indeed mamona—specifically, a kinyan (acquisition) that creates ownership rights over the woman. This is not merely about the money of kiddushin but about the cheftza (essence) of kiddushin itself being an act of ownership.
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 4a
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.
