A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does the gezeirah shavah of ki yikach teach us—that kesef is a kinyan de'oraita, or only that kiddushin involves kinyan? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation "kesef midivrei sofrim" is explored through the machlokes Rashi (רש"י), Rashbam, and Tosafos (תוספות). The shiur argues that the gezeirah shavah teaches only that ishus is a kinyan, while kesef as the means is divrei sofrim, explaining why Chazal can uproot kedushin created by kesef but not by bi'ah.
The shiur begins with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Ishus 1-2, where he states that a woman is acquired through kesef, shtar, or bi'ah—bi'ah and shtar are de'oraita, while kesef is "midivrei sofrim." The Ra'avad takes issue with this, asserting that kesef is clearly de'oraita. The Kesef Mishna resolves the contradiction by explaining that the Rambam does not mean kesef is de'rabbanan, but rather that anything learned through the yud-gimmel midos (the thirteen hermeneutical principles) rather than stated explicitly in the Torah (תורה) is termed "divrei sofrim," even though it is de'oraita in force. This is paralleled by the Rambam's classification of the four sections in tefillin as divrei sofrim despite being learned de'oraita, because they are not explicit. The shiur then turns to the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 3a-b to understand what exactly the gezeirah shavah of ki yikach teaches. The Gemara asks why the Mishna says "ha'ishah nikneis" using three methods, and answers with the gezeirah shavah of ki yikach from the field of Efron. Rashi (רש"י) and the Rabbeinu explain that the gezeirah shavah teaches that just as Avrohom acquired the field with kesef, so too a woman is acquired with kesef. However, the shiur notes that this leads to a difficulty in the Gemara in Kesubos, which discusses why Chazal can be mafsik (uproot) kiddushin created with kesef but not kiddushin created by bi'ah. Rashi in Kesubos cites "kol rabbosai" who hold that kesef is a kinyan de'rabbanan, which would explain the distinction—Chazal can uproot a de'rabbanan kinyan retroactively, but not a de'oraita one like bi'ah.
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 3a-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.
