No community start suggestion yet.
How does Kiddushin work when something worth less than a shevar prutah here is worth a prutah elsewhere? The Ran requires both that it's worth a prutah somewhere (shema sheveli prutah beModai) and the concept of didi shaveli. The shiur explores why both elements are needed and why didi shaveli alone—which works by pidyon haben—doesn't suffice for Kiddushin without preventing genai (cheapening) the woman.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the Ran's understanding of Kiddushin on daf 10a: Why does the mechanism of shema sheveli prutah beModai require BOTH that an object is worth a prutah somewhere else AND the concept of didi shaveli (subjective valuation)? If an object is genuinely worth a prutah elsewhere, why do we need didi shaveli? And conversely, if didi shaveli works—as it demonstrably does by pidyon haben, where one can subjectively value a dollar as worth five dollars—why doesn't it work by itself for Kiddushin? The Ran states that when something is worth a prutah in Modai (another place), she is mekudeshet based on a combination: it's worth money elsewhere, and since she's dakah le'isyaker (accustomed to spending that amount), we treat it as if she said didi shaveli. But the Avnei Miluim raises a powerful question: According to Beit Shammai, who require a dinar for Kiddushin, if someone gives half a dinar—which is already considered money—why wouldn't didi shaveli by itself create a vadai (certain) Kiddushin? After all, it's already money, so didi shaveli should simply elevate its subjective value to a full dinar.
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 10a
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.
