No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) bring a kal vachomer that chuppah should create kiddushin when the Mishna already teaches that an arusah eats terumah? The shiur develops the yesod that kinyan kesef for erusin is not ownership itself but a kinyan commitment to nisuin—creating "beiso" status. This explains why kesef works for kiddushin and resolves the apparent redundancy in the Gemara's argumentation.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a-b exploring the relationship between kinyan kesef (monetary acquisition) and chuppah in creating kiddushin (erusin) and nisuin. Rabbi Zweig addresses fundamental questions about why the Gemara (גמרא) needs to prove from a kal vachomer that an arusah (betrothed woman) eats terumah when the Mishna already states this explicitly, and what the Gemara means when it says that "devar Torah (תורה), an arusah bas Yisrael eats terumah" based on the pasuk "ki yikneh nefesh kinyan kaspo." The core difficulty is understanding what kinyan kesef accomplishes. The shiur notes that an eved ivri—whom you own completely—does not eat terumah according to the Sifri, so mere ownership (kinyan) cannot be the basis for a woman eating terumah. Rather, the right to eat terumah comes from being "kol torov beveiso"—part of the kohen's household. This status is created through nisuin, not through erusin alone.
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 5a-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.
