A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Mishna's "ha'isha niknes" describes erusin, not nisuin—so where does the Gemara (גמרא) define how a married woman becomes permitted to remarry? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and especially three contradictory Rambams: kesuva is repeatedly called derabanan, yet the Rambam (רמב"ם) writes that kedusha *and* kesuva are both Torah (תורה) requirements for marriage. The analysis touches on the lav of kedasha, the difference between pelegesh and wife, and whether "niknes" implies full marriage or only kiddushin.
The shiur opens with a striking observation: the Mishna in Kiddushin 2a discusses how a woman is acquired ("ha'isha niknes"), but the entire Mishna addresses only *arusah* (a betrothed woman), not a fully married woman (nesuah). This raises the fundamental question: where in the Mishna does the Gemara (גמרא) teach how a married woman becomes permitted to another man (e.g., through divorce or death)? Rabbi Zweig then turns to Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on the opening words "ha'isha niknes." Tosafos raises a textual difficulty: why does the Mishna say "*ha*isha" with the definite article, rather than simply "isha"? Tosafos suggests the word "ha" is a demonstrative ("*this* woman"), but the shiur presses: what did Tosafos originally assume the word "ha'isha" meant, such that its inclusion would *not* be a problem? This leads into a broader discussion of the Mishna's language and whether "niknes" refers only to erusin or carries implications for full nisuin as well.
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.
