No community start suggestion yet.
What is the concept of yadayim (implied language) in kiddushin, and when does indirect language create a valid marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: unlike nedarim where we merely need to know what you meant, kiddushin requires a maaseh (act) itself to be recognizable as kiddushin, not just understandable intent. The Ran's position that yadayim she'einan mochichos (unclear implications) may not work by kiddushin is explained through this framework.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of yadayim she'einan mochichos (indirect or implied language) in the context of kiddushin. The central question is whether implied language that does not explicitly state "harei at mekudeshes li" can create a valid marriage. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing a fundamental principle: yadayim in kiddushin cannot be understood the same way as yadayim in nedarim. By nedarim, the concept of yadayim means we know what the person intended—if someone says "d'avar zeh asur alai" without saying "k'korban," we understand they meant to prohibit it like a korban. The pasuk is marbeh (expands) to include such cases. But yadayim cannot mean "we know what you meant" in a vacuum—the question is always whether you expressed it adequately, not whether you internally intended it.
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 5b
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.
