A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna in Kiddushin spell "ishah" with a hei? The shiur explores Tosafos (תוספות)'s principle that "ishah mevurar bekra" requires this grammatical form, examining the Maharshal-Maharsha dispute: does the hei apply to any married woman (Maharshal) or only when the topic is the act of marriage itself (Maharsha)? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s opening—beginning Hilchos Ishus with pre-Sinai history—frames a broader inquiry into what constitutes the mitzvah (מצוה) of kiddushin.
Rabbi Zweig opens Masechta Kiddushin by analyzing a Tosafos (תוספות) that addresses a seemingly technical grammatical question: why does the Mishna spell "ishah" (woman) with a hei when discussing marriage? Tosafos introduces the principle that "ishah mevurar bekra"—that the word ishah with a hei is specifically tied to the Torah (תורה)'s language of marriage. The shiur asks: is this merely a stylistic convention, or does it reveal a substantive halakhic principle? The Maharsha and Maharshal offer competing interpretations. The Maharshal argues that once a woman has been married—even if the current Mishna is not discussing the marriage itself—the hei is appropriate. Thus, cases like "ishah sheholach ba'alah l'medinas hayam" (a woman whose husband went overseas) and "ishah shahokah" (a woman who traveled) legitimately use the hei because these women were once married, even though the Mishna discusses their subsequent circumstances. The Maharshal's difficulty is with "ishah shenisar me'ah" (a woman who receives a hundred zuz), which appears unrelated to marriage status. The Maharsha, by contrast, insists that the hei is only warranted when the subject matter is the act of marriage itself, not merely when the woman happens to be married. According to the Maharsha, even "ishah sheholach" and "ishah shahokah" require justification beyond the woman's married status—they are acceptable only because they relate back to the original ishah whose marriage was discussed in the Torah.
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.