A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can ambiguous language create valid kiddushin when both parties intend marriage? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes expressions like "mi yuchadas li" and "charufa" — some resemble terms for living together rather than marriage. The shiur explores whether such language works because the parties are "asukim bo'inyan" (engaged in marriage discussions), or because it might mean melacha (work/servitude), raising fundamental questions about the role of precise language versus intent in kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 6a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of various ambiguous expressions used for kiddushin: "harei at ishti," "harei at arusasi," "harei at k'nimi l'kudashes," and others. The Gemara examines whether these expressions, which reference biblical language about man and woman being together, constitute valid kiddushin language. The discussion centers on whether such expressions are acceptable because they invoke recognizable loshonos (languages/expressions) used in the Torah (תורה), or whether they fail as kiddushin language because they might suggest melacha (servitude) or other non-marital relationships. Rabbi Zweig raises several fundamental questions about the Gemara's structure. Initially, the Gemara seems to question whether these expressions constitute proper kiddushin language at all, since they refer to "being together" rather than specifically to marriage. The Gemara then addresses whether the parties even understand that marriage is intended. The resolution offered is that we're dealing with a case where the parties are "asukim bo'inyan" — already engaged in discussions about marriage — so their intent is clear. According to Rav Yosi, when parties are asukim bo'inyan, no specific formula is even required; the fact that they're discussing marriage is sufficient.
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 6a
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.
