No community start suggestion yet.
When can indirect language (yad) effect kiddushin? The Ran holds that yad mochiach itself is the Gemara (גמרא)'s uncertainty; the shiur argues this cannot be reconciled with Tosfos, who says such language would work "if not for other reasons." Building on the Rashba, Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental chakira: kiddushin requires witnesses to a maaseh kiddushin—not merely an interpretation of intent. Context that clarifies meaning is part of what witnesses "see"; external commentary explaining ambiguous words is not.
This shiur analyzes Masechta Nedarim's discussion of whether indirect language (yad) can create valid kiddushin. The core sugya examines the case where a man gives kiddushin to woman A and says "ve'at" (and you) to woman B. The Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question is whether yad mochiach—language that clearly indicates intent even without explicit terminology—is effective for kiddushin. The Ran frames this as the Gemara's central uncertainty: does yad work for kiddushin or not? Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental difficulty with the Ran's approach. Tosfos states that if the language had no other meaning besides kiddushin, it would work—implying that yad itself could be effective. But if yad mochiach is the very subject of the Gemara's doubt, how can Tosfos assume it would work? This creates a contradiction: Tosfos seems to assume yad is effective, while the Ran says the Gemara is uncertain about this very point.
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!
Nedarim (discussion of yad l'kidushin)
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.
