No community start suggestion yet.
When someone gives money at another's behest, what creates the obligation—the money itself or the hana'ah of listening? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that in both din arev and eved Kena'ani, the kiddushin works through indirect hana'ah (the woman benefits because of the man), not direct payment. A fundamental question emerges: why isn't the hana'ah of listening alone sufficient—why must a third party actually benefit?
This shiur examines a fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the mechanism of kiddushin in two scenarios discussed in Kiddushin 7b: din arev (guarantor) and din eved Kena'ani (Canaanite servant). The core question is what precisely creates the kiddushin—is it the money itself, or the hana'ah (benefit) that the woman receives? According to Rashi, in both cases the woman is mekudeshes with money. In din arev, she is mekudeshes with the money that was given. In din eved Kena'ani, Eliezer acts as Yitzchok's shaliach, giving kesef kiddushin on his behalf, and the woman is mekudeshes with that money. The Rambam, however, takes a completely different approach. In both scenarios, the woman is mekudeshes not with money but with hana'ah. In din arev, she receives hana'ah from the fact that he listened to her words (according to the Rivkos's formulation). In din eved Kena'ani, she is mekudeshes with the hana'ah that she received a gift "biglali"—because of the mekadesh.
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 7b
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.
