A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna describe marriage with the language of kinyan (acquisition) rather than kiddushin (sanctification)? The Gemara (גמרא) reveals that kesef-marriage is fundamentally a kinyan transaction learned from "yotzei chinam ein kesef," while shtar and bi'ah create holy matrimony. This distinction explains why Chazal can be mafkir kiddushei kesef but not other forms.
This Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes the opening contradiction on Kiddushin 2a between the language of "isha niknis" (a woman is acquired) in the first Mishna and "ish mekadesh" (a man sanctifies) in the second Mishna. The fundamental question is whether marriage should be characterized as a business relationship (kinyan) or as holy matrimony (kiddushin). The Gemara presents two possible approaches to understanding this contradiction. One approach treats this as purely a linguistic issue: both formulations are appropriate, and we simply need to understand why different language is used in different contexts. The alternative approach views the language of kinyan as inherently inappropriate and demeaning for marriage—once we know marriage is kiddushin (sanctification), it seems wrong to describe it in business terms.
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.
