A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Torah (תורה) require a *pruta* for kiddushin, and can something equivalent in value (*shave kesef*) substitute for actual money? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s two approaches: first, that *shave kesef* qualifies because it has asset value like money; second, that it works because it can be converted to cash. The deep question is whether kiddushin is a ritual act requiring specific materials or a contractual transaction accepting equivalent value.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Tosafos (תוספות) on Kiddushin 2a, examining the principle of *shave kesef k'kesef* (goods equivalent to money) and how it applies to kiddushin. Tosafos asks why the Mishna says "shave kesef" when it could simply say "kesef" (money), similar to the language used regarding an *eved ivri* (Hebrew slave). The fundamental question is whether kiddushin, pidyon haben, and other ritual acts can be performed with items of equal value rather than actual currency. Tosafos raises the difficulty that we might need a special verse to permit *shave kesef* in each context. The Gemara (גמרא) teaches that an *eved ivri* requires a verse, and *pidyon haben* (redemption of the firstborn) also requires a verse. Tosafos suggests that pidyon haben derives this from a *klal u'prat u'klal*, but the question remains for *erchin* (valuations) and kiddushin. How do we know *shave kesef* works for these?
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 2a
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.
