No community start suggestion yet.
Does money given to the father constitute part of the ma'aseh kiddushin itself, or merely remove an impediment to marriage? The shiur resolves contradictions between 4b and 5b regarding nosan hu v'amra hu by distinguishing whether the monetary transfer is the kiddushin act or just removes the father's ownership. By adam chashuv, passive acceptance creates hana but is not itself a ma'aseh kiddushin—only his amira effects kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question about the nature of kiddushin with kesef (monetary betrothal): is the giving of money to the father an integral part of the ma'aseh kiddushin, or is it merely a prerequisite that removes the father's ownership, clearing the way for a separate act of kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא) on daf 4b presents a contradiction regarding nosan hu v'amra hu (he gave and she said "harei ani mekudeshes lach"). The mishna's reisha implies it's invalid, while the seifa suggests it might be valid. Tosafos (תוספות) explains that the seifa refers to an adam chashuv (important person), where nosan hu v'amra hu would be effective. However, this raises two difficulties: first, with an adam chashuv, it should be called nosan hu (he gave), not nosen hu (she gave), since his acceptance itself confers benefit. Second, if nosen hu by adam chashuv has a din of nosan hu, then nosan hu v'amra hu should work there as well, creating at least a safek kiddushin.
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.
