No community start suggestion yet.
When a man marries with a promise of a hundred but gives only one, is the woman married? The Gemara (גמרא) learns she's mekudeshes v'yashlim—married but entitled to the rest. The shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket: Does the tanai protect the maaseh kiddushin itself (Rambam (רמב"ם)), or does it protect her right to actual money rather than a debt (Raavad)? Rashi (רש"י)'s approach—that kiddushin has no purchase price at all—yields a third position.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Kiddushin 7b and the concept of mekudeshes v'yashlim—a woman who becomes married when given less than the agreed-upon value, but with conditions. The central question is: when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mona" (be betrothed to me with a hundred) but gives only a dinar (one), or ninety-nine instead of a hundred, what is her status? Rabbi Zweig explains that Rashi (רש"י) learns the Gemara (גמרא) to mean the woman is not yet married, but the man can fulfill his obligation later by providing the full amount. According to Rashi, kiddushin does not create a monetary obligation (ein chiyuv damim); rather, it's based on a promise, and she relies on his good faith to fulfill it. The anticipation (tovah) she has is not a legal claim but trust in his future performance.
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.
