No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't kiddushin through arvach lezman (expediting a father's obligation) considered ribbis? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether the woman is "giving" the man a peruta's value by forgoing what he owes her. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot differ on whether kiddushin money represents payment for actual value or merely fulfills a technical requirement, which determines if ribbis applies.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion on Kiddushin 6b regarding whether a man can be mekadesh a woman through arvach lezman—by expediting a financial obligation her father owes him. The central question is whether this constitutes ribbis (interest), since the man appears to be receiving value (the expedited payment) in exchange for the kiddushin. The Gemara presents the case where a father owes a man money, and the man agrees to be marbitz lizman (expedite or forgo the obligation) in exchange for marrying the daughter. This raises the question: since the man would normally have to pay someone a peruta to handle such a transaction, and now he's getting this service for free through the kiddushin, isn't he effectively receiving ribbis—getting value from the woman beyond the pure kiddushin transaction?
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 6b
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.
