A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be married against her will? The shiur distinguishes between two types of force: physically manipulating her hand (she'lo mi'da'atah) versus threatening her until she agrees (afkinan rabbanan mi'kiddushin minei). The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 2b establishes that kiddushin requires da'as—the woman must volitionally perform the act—a chiddush because marriage benefits her.
This shiur provides a fundamental analysis of Kiddushin 2b, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement that a woman cannot be married against her will. The discussion centers on understanding the distinction between two types of forced marriage and how the Gemara, Rishonim, and Rambam (רמב"ם) address this issue. The shiur begins by analyzing the Rambam's formulation in Hilchos Ishus, which appears to present two separate halachos. The first states "ein ishah miskadeshes ela l'retzoneha" (a woman can only be married with her consent), and the second addresses "mekadesh ishah ba'al korchah" (marrying a woman by force). The Ravad Maggid suggests these represent two distinct legal principles: one regarding the requirement of da'as (volition), and another regarding the rabbinic principle of afkinan rabbanan mi'kiddushin minei (the rabbis uprooted marriages done under duress).
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 2b
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.
