No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) omit da'at amos from kiddushin yet require karov lo, a seemingly contradictory position? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: kiddushin requires not just giving but receiving—the woman must actually benefit and have control. This explains why yochol ishomro is essential for kiddushin but not gittin, and how hefker beis hefker creates a chatzer for kinyan purposes.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s piskei halacha (הלכה) regarding kiddushin: why does the Rambam rule that karov lo is sufficient for kiddushin (requiring yochol ishomro, the ability to safeguard), yet omits the halacha of da'at amos? This appears contradictory—on one hand, he is machmir by requiring more than da'at amos, but on the other hand, he is meikel by not requiring toshuach betziklenu (placing in her hand) as gittin does. The shiur explains that toshuach betziklenu is a din of yad—physically putting something into someone's hand. Da'at amos, by contrast, is a kinyan—a form of acquisition. The key insight is that kiddushin requires a fundamentally different mode of transfer than gittin. By gittin, you must give the get to the woman—it must reach her. By kiddushin, however, there are two requirements: (1) you must give it to her, and (2) she must receive something from it. Kiddushin is not baal korcha; it is a transaction where the woman must be mekane herself back in exchange for what she receives.
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!
Gittin 78b
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.
