A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does "av zakai b'vito" mean for each type of kiddushin? Rashi (רש"י) explains that by kesef, the daughter may receive the money but the father owns it; by shtar, the father must receive the shtar directly; by bi'ah, the father can give her over al korcha—even against her will. The shiur unpacks these three distinct models and explores the Tosfos-Rashi debate over whether the father truly owns the daughter's body or merely her marriage rights.
The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation of the Mishna's principle that a father is zakai (has rights) in his daughter's kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that Rashi learns three fundamentally different models depending on the mode of kiddushin—kesef, shtar, and bi'ah—each revealing a distinct aspect of the father's ownership. Regarding kiddushin with kesef (money), Rashi explains that the father need not personally receive the money. The daughter may receive the kesef directly, and the father becomes the owner afterward because we require his da'as (consent). Since the kiddushin cannot take effect without the father's agreement, he is considered the makneh (the one effectuating the kinyan), and therefore the money belongs to him. This model treats the father's zakai as a consequence of his required consent rather than as direct ownership of the transaction itself.
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.
