No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a woman be mekadesh with an object worth less than a shaveh pruta? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rishonim on whether kiddushin requires actual kesef (an object worth a pruta now) or mere value/benefit. Tosfos and the Rambam (רמב"ם) hold kiddushin demands a ma'aseh—a real cheifetz of kesef—while the Rashba and Geonim view it as an agreement satisfied by future benefit.
This shiur, the second in a series on the concept of shaveh kesef in kiddushin, delves into the machlokes Rishonim regarding whether a woman can be mekadesh with an object worth less than a shaveh pruta. Rabbi Zweig begins by resolving the Atzmus Yosef's question on Tosfos: Tosfos holds that shaveh kesef has two deficiencies—it is not an actual object of kesef, and it lacks absolute value (shavius). The Rashba's innovation is that even pachas m'shaveh pruta has value because of its future benefit (ishtamchus), but Tosfos requires an actual ma'aseh kiddushin, which demands a real cheifetz of kesef now, not future benefit. The shiur then explores a three-way machlokes among the Rishonim regarding whether a kli worth less than a shaveh pruta is valid for mo'adeh b'miktzas (partial admission). The Ramban (רמב"ן) holds one needs two prutas' worth of kelim. The Geonim hold that any kelim suffice, regardless of value. The Rashba introduces a third position: even a kli worth less than a pruta in market value is considered worth a pruta because of its future utility (ishtamchus).
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 2a
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.
