No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "Be mekudeshes to me with a mana" but gives only a dinar, is the woman married immediately with a debt owed, or only when she receives the full sum? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between mana stam and mana zu, exploring whether the additional money functions as part of the kesef kiddushin (purchase price) or as a separate present, and how mana b'cholech (counting it out) affects the chalos (taking effect) of the kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 8a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of kiddushin effected through a promise of money (mana) when only partial payment is given immediately. The fundamental question is: when a man says "harei at mekudeshes li b'mana" and gives a dinar, what is the halachic status of the kiddushin? Rashi (רש"י) appears to hold that the woman must receive the dinar immediately (miyad), and the kiddushin takes effect right away because she accepted it l'shem kiddushin. This raises a fundamental question: why does Rashi focus on her intention (daas) when kiddushin is a bilateral kinyan requiring the agreement of both parties? The shiur questions how we can determine the kiddushin's validity based solely on what she intended.
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
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.
