No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kiddushin work with sheveh kesef (subjective value) when the Torah (תורה) says "kesef" (money)? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's proof from the lashon of ledidei sheveli (personal valuation) rather than from the braisa about an eagle. It emerges that Tosfos is teaching that subjective value is Torah-recognized value—a fundamental principle needed for kinyan kiddushin.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 2a, focusing on Tosfos's treatment of the question: How do we know that sheveh kesef (an object worth money) has the same status as kesef (actual money) for kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא) states that we learn this from the pasuk by eved ivri, and also from the case of Rav Kahana using a sudra (scarf) for pidyon haben. Rabbi Zweig opens by noting a fundamental question: Why does Tosfos bring the proof from Rav Kahana's sudra and the principle of "ledidei sheveli" (according to his personal valuation) when there is an earlier, more explicit braisa stating that an "egel zeh al pidyon beno" (this calf for redemption of my son) is valid? The braisa directly states that pidyon haben can be performed with an object, not just silver. Why does Tosfos bypass this straightforward source and instead cite a later case involving subjective valuation?
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.
