A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the nature of a mashkon (collateral)? The shiur contrasts two fundamental approaches: Rashi (רש"י) views mashkon solely as pressure to ensure repayment, while Rashba, Ramban (רמב"ן), and Ritva view it as the beginning of collection itself—an achizah in the debt. This machloket determines whether giving a mashkon can create a binding obligation even without an existing debt.
This shiur presents a fundamental machloket among the Rishonim regarding the nature of mashkon (collateral) and its ability to create obligations. The starting point is whether giving a mashkon can create a binding commitment when there is no pre-existing debt. Rashi (רש"י) holds that a mashkon cannot create an obligation on oneself, while the Rashba, Ramban (רמב"ן), and Ritva hold that it can. The shiur develops two fundamentally different understandings of what mashkon is. According to one approach (attributed to Rashi), a mashkon is merely a tool to pressure the borrower to repay. The lender has the right to hold onto something to ensure that the borrower feels pressured to fulfill his obligation. The right to hold the mashkon exists solely to create this pressure. According to the second approach (the Rashba, Ramban, and Ritva), mashkon is not merely about pressure but represents the beginning of collection (techilat geviyah). The lender holding the mashkon has an achizah—a partial ownership or kinyan—in the debt itself. The right to hold the mashkon stems from the lender's right to collect from this object.
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 8a-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.
