A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mekadesh a woman with land still attached to the ground? The shiur analyzes the machlokes Rishonim on whether the principle of havaya l'yetzia (comparing marriage laws to divorce laws) makes mechubar l'karka invalid for kiddushin. Four approaches emerge: the Baal HaItur extends the prohibition to all forms of kiddushin, the Ran limits it to kiddushei shtar, the Rambam (רמב"ם) permits even kiddushei shtar, and the Rashba distinguishes between writing on mechubar versus delivering mechubar.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the sugya in Kiddushin 2a regarding whether one can be mekadesh a woman with karka (land) or mechubar l'karka (something attached to the ground). The central question revolves around the principle of havaya l'yetzia—the Torah (תורה)'s comparison between the laws of marriage (havaya/kiddushin) and divorce (yetzia/gittin). The Gemara (גמרא) in Gittin establishes that a get written on mechubar l'karka is invalid. The Baal HaItur argues that this invalidation extends to all forms of kiddushin based on the hekesh of havaya l'yetzia. He brings proof from the Gemara in Gittin which discusses why mechubar isn't listed among the similarities between gittin and shtarei avadim—because the same law applies to kiddushin, and the Gemara only lists differences. According to the Baal HaItur, whatever is invalid for get must be invalid for all forms of kiddushin, including even kiddushei kesef (monetary 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 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.
