No community start suggestion yet.
Why is nosnah hi amra hu (she gives, he declares) invalid for kiddushin, while nosnah hu amra hi (he gives, she declares) by Adam Chashuv is questionable? The shiur develops the fundamental difference between active and passive parties in kinyan kiddushin. Tosafos (תוספות) and Rashba are shown to disagree whether Adam Chashuv means he gives her hana'ah or she takes hana'ah from him, reframing when shtika kehodaah (silence as consent) applies.
This shiur provides a deep analysis of Tosafos (תוספות) on Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a woman's or man's declaration can create valid kiddushin. The central question is why the Gemara doesn't cite the case of nosnah hi amra hu (she gives money and he declares kiddushin) as an example of invalid kiddushin, similar to how it cites other invalid cases. Rabbi Zweig begins by explaining Tosafos's approach: the Gemara only mentions cases that are definitively invalid, not cases that might sometimes be valid. Nosnah hu amra hi (he gives, she declares) is not mentioned because by Adam Chashuv (an important person), it might be valid, and the Braysa avoids cases with uncertain status. This raises the question: what about nosnah hi amra hu by Adam Chashuv—should that also be a safek (questionable case)?
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.
