No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be mekudeshes through the mechilah (forgiving) of ribbis she doesn't legally owe? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether kiddushin can work with the fifth zuz of a four-for-five loan arrangement—money that has no legal standing. Two approaches emerge: either the hanah comes from forgiving what she would have paid (though forbidden), or the kiddushin works through the hanah of the original loan itself.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the opening Gemara (גמרא) in Masechta Kiddushin (2a), focusing on the mechanism of kiddushin through monetary transfer and specifically the case of "keitzad b'kesef" (how does kiddushin work with money). The discussion centers on a complex case where a man lends a woman four zuzim with the stipulation that she repay five, and then offers to be mekadesh her by forgiving the fifth zuz. The Gemara raises two fundamental problems with this case. First, it appears to be ribbis ma'aseh (actual interest), which presents a linguistic problem—the term should be "haramas ribbis" (removing interest) rather than ribbis ma'aseh. Second, and more fundamentally, there is the problem of "chayenu milvah" (this is merely a loan)—how can there be any chiddush (novelty) in forgiving the fifth zuz when she never had a legal obligation to pay it in the first place? In Jewish law, ribbis is not legally collectible; if someone pays it, they can reclaim it, and if they refuse to pay, no beis din will enforce 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 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.
