A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) asks why kiddushin through chalipin worth more than a sheva pruta shouldn't work, since that amount qualifies as kesef. The shiur develops two approaches: Rashi (רש"י) holds chalipin is inherently barter (genai), while Tosfos argues it's excluded because it's not truly kesef. A third reading suggests the Gemara distinguished symbolic-transfer chalipin (kinyan sudar) from exchange chalipin (machlif par b'chamor), with only the latter possibly valid for kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya on Kiddushin 3a concerning why kinyan chalipin (barter/exchange) does not effect kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא)'s question is: since chalipin worth more than a sheva pruta should qualify as kesef, why doesn't it work for marriage? The shiur explores multiple approaches to this question, focusing on the positions of Rashi (רש"י), Tosfos, and the Mir Yeshiva, and develops a comprehensive framework for understanding different types of kinyan chalipin. The Mir Yeshiva proposes that the issue is batel da'as—when an individual woman accepts less than a dinar for kiddushin, her personal consent (da'as) is nullified by the fact that most women would not accept such terms. According to this view, individual choice is subordinated to societal norms. Rabbi Zweig raises two strong objections to the Mir's approach. First, the Gemara elsewhere (regarding the case of a woman taking less than a dinar) concludes "pashta yadah"—if she actually extends her hand and accepts it, the kiddushin is valid. This directly contradicts the notion of batel da'as. Second, the Gemara asks why wealthy women (bnos ravravan) shouldn't be excluded from kiddushin since they would accept a dinar. If batel da'as were the principle, this question makes no sense—those women are doing what most women would do (accept a dinar), so their da'as should certainly count.
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 3a
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.
