No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't yi'ud of an amah ivriah considered ba'al korach (against her will) if the master designates her as his wife unilaterally? Tosfos develops a fundamental distinction: the *ownership* in marriage here derives from the pre-existing shifchas relationship (maidservant status), not from the kesef of yi'ud itself. Only the change to *isha* status happens ba'al korach, while the kinyan remains consensual—resolving the Gemara (גמרא)'s difficulty.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental passage in Kiddushin 5a concerning the relationship between different forms of kinyan (acquisition) in marriage, specifically examining why the Gemara (גמרא) cannot derive kinyan kesef (monetary acquisition) for regular kiddushin from the cases of shtar (document) and bi'ah (marital relations). The central difficulty revolves around the concept of ba'al korach—an act performed against someone's will. The Gemara's initial question is straightforward: since we know that shtar and bi'ah can effect kiddushin, why do we need a separate pasuk to teach us that kesef (money) works? The Gemara answers that shtar and bi'ah work even ba'al korach (against the woman's will), whereas perhaps kesef does not. The Gemara then challenges this distinction by pointing to the case of amah ivriah (Jewish maidservant), where kesef also works ba'al korach. Specifically, when the master designates his maidservant as his wife through yi'ud, this appears to be a case of kesef working ba'al korach.
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.
