No community start suggestion yet.
When can ambiguous language create a valid marriage? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes phrases like "miuked is," "miued is," and "charufasi" that might mean marriage or might mean employment. The core tension: if the couple is engaged in marriage discussions (asukim b'oso inyan), does that context validate otherwise unclear language, or does saying the wrong words ruin even an obvious marriage context?
This advanced shiur explores a complex passage in Kiddushin 5b concerning alternative language formulations (lashonos) that might or might not effect kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) examines several expressions—miuked is, miued is, salosi, negdasi, charufa—that could mean either marriage or employment (melacha), creating fundamental uncertainty about their validity for kiddushin. The shiur opens by establishing two categories of cases. The first category involves language like "miuked is" (designated for me) and "miued is" (appointed for me). Rashi (רש"י) explains that miuked is derives from the pasuk describing how Hashem (ה׳) closed Adam's wound after creating Chavah—a lashon associated with marriage formation. The Rambam (רמב"ם), however, offers a radically different interpretation: these terms reflect a king's legal right to designate a woman as his pilegesh (concubine). According to the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim perek dalet, just as a king has rights to conscript citizens and property, he can acquire a woman through simple designation (miyuk). The Rambam extends this to an amah ivriya—when her master designates her for himself, the kinyan that gave him ownership rights in her labor can transform into kinyan ishus. This reading suggests that miuked and miued are not metaphorical references to marriage but actual legal mechanisms of yichud-based acquisition.
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 5b
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.
