A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can the same instrument that creates kiddushin also dissolve it? The shiur analyzes ein kategor naseh sanegor in the context of kiddushin, distinguishing between kinyan-based shtar (IOU notes) and religious documents. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to shtar hadama is defended: when a shtar creates a new obligation (not evidencing a preexisting one), it's called shtar, not kesef.
The shiur continues analysis of Kiddushin 5a, focusing on the principle of ein kategor naseh sanegor—that something which prosecutes cannot become a defender. Rabbi Zweig addresses why the Gemara (גמרא) entertained learning kinyan shtar from a kal vachomer if ein kategor naseh sanegor should have immediately disqualified this approach, since shtar works for get and therefore shouldn't work for kiddushin. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction through Tosfos between two types of transactions: (1) retracing one's steps versus (2) creating and destroying. By amah ivriah, when she goes free with kesef, this represents a retracing—the master originally paid kesef to acquire her, so returning kesef reverses the transaction. Ein kategor naseh sanegor doesn't apply to retracing because the same instrument naturally undoes what it did. By kiddushin, however, shtar creates the marriage bond, and using the same instrument to dissolve it would mean one thing both creates and destroys a reality—which is logically impossible.
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 5a
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.
