No community start suggestion yet.
When a man betroths a woman with "this mana" but delivers only a dinar, is she immediately married with a debt owed, or married conditionally upon full payment? The Gemara (גמרא)'s machlokes between viewing the stated amount as a purchase price versus a tanai reveals two fundamentally different models of the kiddushin transaction, with Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) disagreeing on whether the woman can accept later payment or whether the kiddushin is automatically void.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the complex issue of partial payment in kiddushin. The central question is: when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mana" (you are betrothed to me with a mana) but only gives a dinar, what is the halachic status of the woman? The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav Elazar's principle that she is mekudeshes v'yashlim—married immediately but the man must complete payment. This creates an apparent problem: the woman is locked into a precarious position where she cannot marry anyone else (since she might be married to this man), yet she is not definitively married either (since he might not pay). The shiur asks: why would a woman agree to such an arrangement?
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 8a
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.
