A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why should chuppah (nisuin) create kiddushin (erusin) when it's normally used only for nisuin? The Gemara (גמרא) makes a kal vachomer from the three methods of erusin (kesef, shtar, biah), arguing that if they create erusin despite not creating nisuin, chuppah should surely create erusin since it does create nisuin. Rashi (רש"י)'s cryptic comments about bal korcha (against her will) appear to contradict the Gemara's own conclusion and generate multiple difficulties.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya on Kiddushin 5a dealing with a kal vachomer argument to derive that chuppah should be able to create kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a logical argument: if kesef, shtar, and biah can create erusin even though they don't create nisuin, then chuppah, which does create nisuin, should certainly be able to create erusin. The Gemara raises several objections to this kal vachomer, focusing particularly on the concept of bal korcha (acting against someone's will). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to the sugya. Rashi explains that when the Gemara says "mah kesef she'eino gomer," it means kesef does not completely remove the woman from her father's reshus (domain) for purposes of inheritance and annulling vows. The shiur raises a fundamental question: why does Rashi frame the discussion in terms of "taking out from the father's reshus" rather than simply stating that kesef doesn't fully acquire her for the husband? This becomes critical because later, Rashi will need to explain how these kinyanim relate to bal korcha.
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.
