A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "mana zu" (this hundred) versus "mana stam" (a hundred) and gives money incrementally, when is the ma'aseh kiddushin complete? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Ashi and Rav Elazar: does the kiddushin take effect immediately with the first dinar (the rest being a tenai), or only when the full amount is delivered? Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Ran offer three distinct approaches to whether mana zu changes the definition of the ma'aseh kiddushin or merely the timing of its chalos.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 8a regarding the mechanics of kiddushin when money is given incrementally. The core question revolves around the machlokes between Rav Ashi and Rav Elazar: what happens when a man says he is mekadesh a woman with a "mana" (hundred) but gives the money in installments, particularly when counting "one, two, three" (mana haolech)? Rabbi Zweig begins by framing the fundamental kashya: how can there be a dispute among the Amoraim about whether kiddushin took effect? If Rav Ashi holds there is no ma'aseh kiddushin, how could witnesses (eidim) testify that kiddushin occurred? How could the woman know she is married if the legal authorities themselves are uncertain? This question drives the entire analysis.
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 8a
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.
