A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't kesef work for both kiddushin and gerushin, while shtar does? The Gemara (גמרא)'s cryptic principle "ein kateiguer naaseh saneguer" reveals that marriage and divorce aren't simply opposite transactions but fundamentally different realities. A divorced woman never returns to her pre-married state—she remains forever connected to her first husband—which explains why the same kinyan cannot function both ways.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in Kiddushin 5a: why the Gemara (גמרא) uses the language of "hachnasa" (bringing in) and "hotza'ah" (taking out) rather than "kinyan" when discussing kiddushin through kesef, and what is meant by the enigmatic principle "ein kateiguer naaseh saneguer" (the prosecutor cannot become the defender). The Gemara attempts a kal vachomer: if kesef, which cannot do girushin, can do nisuin, then surely shtar, which does work for girushin, should work for kiddushin. The rejection of a parallel hekesh—that just as shtar does both kiddushin and gerushin, kesef should also do both—is puzzling, especially given the principle "ein meshivin al hekesh" (we don't refute a hekesh with logical objections). The Gemara's answer seems to be merely a perception issue: "yomru kesef machnis, kesef motzi"—people will say that what brings in also takes out.
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 5a
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.
