No community start suggestion yet.
When a man asks "if I give you this, will you marry me?" and the woman responds "hav" (give), is she accepting or rejecting? The Ran and Rashba disagree fundamentally on whether kiddushin requires the woman's active da'as makneh (transfer of herself) or merely passive acceptance without resistance. This determines whether "hav" constitutes agreement or refusal.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between the Ran and the Rashba regarding the nature of a woman's consent in kiddushin, focusing on the case where the woman responds "hav" (give) to a marriage proposal. The central question is whether this response constitutes acceptance or rejection of kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig establishes that the core machloket concerns what level of da'as (consent) is required from the woman in kiddushin. According to the Rashba, when a woman says "hav," there is an inherent deficiency (chesaron) in the response—she should have said "yes" if she meant to accept. The Ran disagrees, holding that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with saying "hav"; the only potential problem is dibur kama k'asama (reliance on earlier statements).
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 9a
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.
