No community start suggestion yet.
What makes pilagesh different from kiddushin? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds pilagesh requires a kinyan through yichud but not commitment to nisuin, while kadesha involves no kinyan at all. This explains why the Rambam introduces the concept in Hilchos Ishus: without kiddushin protecting a woman, even exclusive relationships constitute kadesha.
This shiur addresses fundamental questions in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s treatment of pilagesh and kiddushin. The central problem is why the Rambam begins Hilchos Ishus by discussing the history of pilagesh (concubinage), which seems to belong in Hilchos Issurei Biah rather than Hilchos Kiddushin. Additionally, the Rambam's statement that a woman who is meyuchedes (exclusive) to one man without kiddushin violates the prohibition of kadesha contradicts the Raavad, who argues that exclusivity itself removes the kadesha prohibition. The shiur proposes that pilagesh requires a kinyan, not merely an exclusive relationship. The Rambam states that pilagesh is "konah osah b'yichud bilvad" (acquires her through yichud alone). This language indicates ownership, not just going steady. The source for this kinyan is found in the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Ridvaz, who explain that chuppah can be made before erusin. This demonstrates that yichud itself constitutes a kinyan allowing one to live with a woman, separate from the kinyan kiddushin that creates the status of arusah.
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.
