A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does kiddushin create exclusive ownership rights or merely establish prohibitions? The shiur analyzes a machloket between the Pnei Yeshurun and Avnei Miluim to argue that kiddushin has two distinct components: kinyan (acquisition) and issur (prohibition). This dual structure explains why the Gemara (גמרא) needs a hekesh to prevent second kiddushin from creating issurim even when the kinyan aspect fails.
This shiur examines the fundamental nature of kiddushin by analyzing the Mishna's statement that "a woman is acquired (niknes) in three ways." Rabbi Zweig begins by exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary that explains niknes as the woman being acquired to her husband, creating exclusive rights that prevent her from marrying another. The Ra'ah and Meiri support this understanding, with the Meiri stating that once acquired, "no one else can be zocheh in her." The discussion then delves into a fundamental machloket between the Pnei Yeshurun and Avnei Miluim regarding whether the first husband's kiddushin prevents a second person's kiddushin from taking effect. The Beit Shmuel holds that in cases of chatzi shifcha chatzi bat chorin (half-slave, half-free woman), if two people attempt kiddushin, only the first is effective because the second constitutes kiddushin with an eishes ish (married woman). However, the Avnei Miluim challenges this based on a Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin that requires a hekesh (textual comparison) to teach that kiddushin doesn't work with eishes ish, suggesting it's not simply a logical svara about prior ownership.
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.
