No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes a valid kinyan kesef for kiddushin versus mekach umemkar? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of arev (guarantor) and eved Kenani to distinguish between kinyanim that work through mamon chagavi (actual monetary obligation) versus gemirus das (manifestation of resolve). The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s apparently contradictory rulings—allowing milva for mekach but not for kiddushin, yet excluding eved Kenani from mekach—are reconciled through this framework.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of din shenayim—the case where a woman tells one man to give money to a second man and thereby becomes betrothed. The central question is what constitutes a valid kinyan kesef and how the requirements differ between kiddushin and mekach umemkar. The Gemara attempts to derive din shenayim from two sources: (1) arev (guarantor), where a person can obligate himself even though he hasn't received anything directly, and (2) eved Kenani, where one person can acquire on behalf of another who hasn't given anything. The shiur explores why each source alone is insufficient and why both are needed together.
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 7a
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.
