No community start suggestion yet.
How does din shneihem work when neither the woman nor the recipient performs the kinyan act? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s attempt to derive din shneihem from arev and eved Canaani, arguing that unlike those cases where one party actively performs the ma'aseh kinyan, din shneihem may operate through gemirus das (mutual consent) rather than a full-fledged kinyan obligation.
This shiur examines the difficult Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7a concerning din shneihem—where a woman says "give money to this person and I will be married to you." The Gemara attempts to derive this case from two principles: din arev (guarantor) and eved Canaani, but encounters significant difficulties. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that in every kinyan, there is typically an active party who performs the ma'aseh kinyan and a passive party who gives consent. In din arev, where the woman tells one person to give money to another and she will marry the giver, the fundamental question is: who performs the actual kinyan? The woman (A) doesn't receive the money directly, the middleman (B) spends the money, and perhaps someone else (C) receives it. Rabbi Zweig argues that in arev, the active party performing the kinyan must be B (the one spending), while A is passive but demonstrates gemirus das (definitive consent) by directing B to spend on her behalf.
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 7a
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.
