A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If a man betroths a woman saying "with fifty zuz" but gives only one dinar, is she betrothed? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces the principle of mekudeshes v'yashlam—she is betrothed contingent on payment of the rest. But this raises a fundamental question: how can this be a valid betrothal when she's locked into a state of igun (potential agunahship) for the rest of her life, unable to marry anyone else while awaiting payment the man may never deliver?
This shiur examines a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 8a dealing with mana zu—a conditional betrothal involving partial payment of the promised sum. The central issue is whether a woman becomes betrothed (mekudeshet) when a man says "be betrothed to me with fifty zuz" but initially gives only one dinar. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the position of Rav Elazar that the kiddushin takes effect immediately—she is mekudeshes v'yashlam (betrothed contingent on completing the payment). The shiur analyzes the Gemara's question: if the kedushah (sanctity of betrothal) takes effect from the outset (kedushin she'yashlam), how can either party retract? According to Rav Elazar, the kedushah is chal (takes effect) on the perutah given, so the condition should already be partially fulfilled.
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.
