A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father keep the money when someone marries his daughter? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 3b presents two approaches: Rashi (רש"י) argues the father only holds the right to perform the act of kiddushin, while Tosafos (תוספות) contends the father owns his daughter's kiddushin rights entirely. This fundamental dispute creates different halachic outcomes regarding who keeps the money in different methods of kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of why a father receives and keeps the money when his daughter is married through kiddushin. The Gemara derives this from the pasuk of "yotzei chinam ein kesef" - when an amah ivriah goes free, there is no money to the master, but there is money "l'adon acher," which refers to the father when his daughter marries. The central question the Gemara raises is: perhaps the money should go to the daughter herself (v'eima l'dida)? The Gemara answers that since the father is involved in receiving the kiddushin, he keeps the money. However, the exact meaning of this principle becomes the subject of a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות).
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.
