No community start suggestion yet.
When a woman receives kiddushin with an item of uncertain value (shema shever pruta), does she require a get? The shiur analyzes Tosfos on Kidushin 12a concerning Rav Chisda's ruling that a woman who claims the kiddushin was valid is not believed to forbid herself to a second man, proving Rav Chisda rejects Shmuel's stringency requiring a get.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kidushin 12a, focusing on the machlokes between Rav Chisda and Shmuel regarding safek kiddushin. The central case involves a woman who received kiddushin with an object that may not have been worth a shever pruta. According to Shmuel, even in cases of doubtful value, the woman requires a get to remarry because perhaps the object was worth the minimum amount in another location (shema shever pruta be'makom acher). Rav Chisda, however, rules leniently that she does not require a get. The Gemara's proof that Rav Chisda rejects Shmuel comes from a case where a woman claims the kiddushin was valid, but Rav Chisda rules she is not believed to forbid herself to a second man. Tosfos questions why this proves Rav Chisda doesn't hold like Shmuel only if we're dealing with a brother (yevama case). Why couldn't the same proof work with any second man?
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!
Kidushin 12a
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.
