No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Kiddushin require the din of Eved Kenani when we already have the parsha of zechiyah (acquiring on behalf of another)? The shiur explores three approaches: that Kiddushin isn't a pure zechus, that the chassan must actively perform the kinyan (not just passively receive), or that Eved Kenani creates the chiddush that the money given becomes "as if" the chassan gave it himself. A fundamental tension emerges: the Ran suggests Eved Kenani may not even apply to dinei mamonos.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 7a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s teaching that one can be mekadesh a woman for another man through the din of Eved Kenani (the law of acquiring a Canaanite slave for someone else). The fundamental question driving the entire discussion is: what does the din of Eved Kenani add to Kiddushin that isn't already covered by the general principle of zechiyah lo adam shelo befanav (acquiring something on behalf of another person)? Rabbi Zweig presents three possible approaches to resolve this question. First, citing Yirmi's point, perhaps Kiddushin is not necessarily a zechus (benefit). While it seems obvious that marriage is beneficial, perhaps we cannot simply assume this, and therefore the general din of zechiyah wouldn't apply without the specific teaching of Eved Kenani. The Avnei Miluim discusses whether one could be mekadesh someone for a katan (minor), which raises similar questions about whether marriage is automatically considered a benefit.
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 7a
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.
