A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man gives a woman hadas worth less than a perutah for kiddushin, then reveals hidden money inside after witnesses declare it invalid, is her silence consent to a new kiddushin or reinstatement of the original? The shiur analyzes whether this case represents kiddushei ta'us (mistaken kiddushin), explores the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rosh on whether this creates Torah (תורה)-level or Rabbinic doubt, and addresses the fundamental question of why silence requires action when normally passivity means nothing in kiddushin.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 12b-13a involving a case where a man gives a woman a bundle of hadas (myrtle branches) for kiddushin, believing it to be worth a perutah. After witnesses declare it's not worth a perutah, the man reveals that four zuzim are hidden inside the bundle. The central question is whether the woman's silence constitutes consent to kiddushin, and the shiur explores multiple layers of this question. The Rosh's position is presented: the woman is a safek mekudeshes (doubtfully married) and requires a get for divorce but needs a new kiddushin to actually marry. The Rosh explains this is based on Shmuel's din regarding shaveh perutah b'makom acher (something worth a perutah elsewhere) - even without the specific complications of this case, Shmuel's principle would create the same safek status. Rabbi Zweig notes that the Rosh uses the language of "chazar" (retracted), suggesting the man changed his mind, which is normally impossible in kiddushin even toch kedei dibur (within the time it takes to say a brief greeting).
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 12b-13a
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.
