No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't a man be mekadesh a woman by giving a mashkan (collateral) for money he promises? The shiur develops the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos on the nature of mashkan. Rashi sees mashkan as transferring property rights to secure an obligation; Tosfos sees it as transferring the personal obligation itself. The analysis explains why mashkan d'acher (collateral from a third party) works for kiddushin, while a direct promise with collateral does not.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Kiddushin 8a-b focusing on the sugya of mashkan (collateral) and its role in kiddushin. The central question is why a man cannot be mekadesh a woman when he promises to give her money and provides a mashkan as security, yet can be mekadesh her with mashkan d'acher (collateral he holds from someone else who owes him money). The shiur develops a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos on the nature of mashkan. According to Rashi, mashkan represents a transfer of property rights (shibud nechosin) to secure a personal obligation. When someone promises to give money but has not yet created a personal obligation, there is no basis for mashkan. The expression "mon ein kan, mashkan ein kan" (no money, no mashkan) reflects that without a personal obligation, the concept of mashkan has no legal foundation. The property guarantee only exists when there's an underlying obligation to guarantee.
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 8a-b
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.
