A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rashba offer two different explanations for the kiddushin formula of nasan hu v'amrah hi—first as a "chisaron ki yikach" (deficiency in "when a man takes") and then as a safek? The shiur analyzes the underlying distinction between restructuring the ma'aseh kiddushin versus creating a chisaron in the eidus (testimony), exploring how the giving party's ability to set conditions affects the validity of kiddushin.
The shiur opens with an apparent contradiction in the Rashba's analysis of nasan hu v'amrah hi (he gives and she says). Initially, the Rashba states it is a "chisaron ki yikach," while later he presents it as a safek. Rabbi Zweig resolves this by distinguishing between two types of questions: first, whether restructuring the kiddushin is valid, and second, whether there is sufficient eidus (testimony) when the kiddushin structure is altered. The first approach follows the Gemara (גמרא)'s initial position that nasan hu v'amrah hi represents a complete restructuring of the kinyan. When the woman defines how the kinyan works—making herself mukdeshes to him—this fundamentally alters the nature of the transaction and is therefore invalid. The second approach, corresponding to the Gemara's second position, questions whether such restructuring constitutes a halachic deficiency at all. This becomes a sfeik d'dina (halachic uncertainty) rather than an absolute disqualification.
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 5b
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.
