No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) exclude kinyan chalipin from kiddushin when it works for fields, even with less than a perutah? Rashi (רש"י) holds that genai hula doesn't mean the woman won't accept—it means the kinyan itself requires the woman to be machna herself (transfer herself), which she won't do for an insignificant amount. This explains why chalipin fails while kesef succeeds, and why shtar works differently—it's not a kinyan of haknah but a declaration of marriage.
This shiur presents an intricate analysis of Kiddushin 3a, focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of why certain kinyanim (modes of acquisition) don't work for kiddushin (betrothal). The central question is: if kinyan chalipin works for acquiring fields even with less than a perutah's worth, why doesn't it work for kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental yesod in Rashi: the concept of genai hula (degradation) doesn't mean the woman won't accept the kiddushin. Rather, it means there's a deficiency in the kinyan itself when applied to kiddushin. The shiur distinguishes between two types of issues: (1) the woman being unwilling to accept, versus (2) the kinyan mechanism being fundamentally incompatible with kiddushin.
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 3a
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.
