A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "Av Zakai BiBito" mean—does the father merely control his daughter's consent, or does he own her? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Kiddushin 3b, exploring whether the father's right to kiddushin money reflects actual ownership versus mere consent authority. Rabbi Akiva Eiger's five kashas on the sugya are systematically addressed through this lens.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "Av Zakai BiBito" (the father has rights in his daughter) regarding kiddushin through kesef, shetar, and biah. The central question is whether this phrase indicates that the father merely has veto power over his daughter's marriage, or whether he actually owns her in a mammonistic sense. The shiur begins by examining the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות). According to Rashi, "Av Zakai BiBito" means that the father can perform the kiddushin against the daughter's will (ba'al korcha). The father has the right to refuse consent, and this gives him leverage to demand payment. However, this does not constitute actual ownership—if someone were to live with the daughter without paying, the father would have no claim to collect afterward because there was no kinyan.
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 3b
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.
