A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can kiddushin be learned from hafara'as nedarim? The shiur examines Rav Akiva Eiger's six difficult kashas on Tosfos, exploring why kiddushin cannot be derived from the father's authority over vows. Tosfos' fundamental yesod emerges: kiddushin is not merely a chalos issur but a transfer of ownership—the father conveys ownership he possesses, making it issur she'yesh bo mamona that cannot be learned from pure issur.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Rav Akiva Eiger's six challenging kashas on Tosfos in Masechta Kiddushin, focusing on why kiddushin cannot be derived from hafara'as nedarim (a father's ability to annul his daughter's vows). Rabbi Zweig methodically works through each question to uncover Tosfos' fundamental understanding of what kiddushin actually is. The Gemara (גמרא)'s basic question is whether the law that a father controls his daughter's kiddushin (ha'av zakai b'kiddushin bito) can be learned from hafara'as nedarim, where the father has authority over his daughter's vows. The Gemara rejects this because it would be issur she'yesh bo mamona—an issur matter that involves monetary consequences—which cannot be learned from pure issur. Tosfos then asks: why not learn just that the father performs the ma'aseh kiddushin from hafara'as nedarim, while deriving that he receives the money from a separate gezeira shava? The Gemara responds that this still cannot work because if the father performs the ma'aseh kiddushin, he will inevitably wind up with the money, making it issur she'yesh bo mamona.
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 3b-4a
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.
