No community start suggestion yet.
How do we know a woman can be betrothed with money (kesef) and that the father receives it? The Gemara (גמרא) derives this from the pasuk "yotzeis chinam ein kesef" regarding an amah ivriyah—if she doesn't need to pay when leaving, there must be another yetzia requiring payment. This teaches both kiddushin with kesef and the father's ownership rights.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s derivation of the laws of monetary betrothal (kiddushin b'kesef) and the father's rights to receive the money. The central sugya asks two fundamental questions: how do we know that kiddushin can be accomplished with money, and how do we know that the money goes to the father rather than the daughter? The Gemara derives both halachos from the pasuk regarding an amah ivriyah (Hebrew maidservant): "yotzeis chinam ein kesef"—she leaves without payment. The inference is that if in this case there is no kesef, there must be another type of yetzia where kesef is required. The Gemara identifies this as kiddushin of a na'arah, where the father receives the monetary payment.
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.
