No community start suggestion yet.
When a woman says "give" (hav) in response to a kiddushin proposal, is that valid acceptance? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question parallels the din of orev (guarantor) where the recipient of money differs from the one being obligated. Tosafos (תוספות) suggests kiddushin may not require actual exchange—merely the woman's willingness to marry combined with some transaction is sufficient, challenging the assumption that kiddushin kesef works like a standard acquisition.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 10b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of whether a woman's response of "hav" (give) or "tane" (give me) constitutes valid acceptance of kiddushin. The central question is whether kiddushin requires an actual exchange—a quid pro quo where the woman is "purchased" with the object—or whether it suffices that she agrees to marry and receives something of value. The Gemara presents several cases where a woman's language creates doubt about whether she's accepting kiddushin. In one case, she asks for an object, he offers to give it as kiddushin, and she responds "hav hav" (give, give). In another, she says "tane" (give me). The question is whether this constitutes acceptance or rejection of the kiddushin proposition.
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 10b
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.
