A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can the kinyan aspect of kiddushin exist separately from the issurim it creates? The Avnei Miluim holds these are distinct elements - the husband acquires the wife's ishus while separate prohibitions are placed upon her. The Pnei Yehoshua argues they're inseparable: either the kinyan enables placing issurim, or the Torah (תורה) automatically creates issurim from the kinyan.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of a fundamental dispute between two major Acharonim - the Avnei Miluim and the Pnei Yehoshua - regarding the nature of kiddushin. The central question is whether the kinyan (acquisition) aspect of kiddushin is separable from the issurim (prohibitions) it creates. The Avnei Miluim holds that there are two distinct elements: a real kinyan where the husband acquires the wife's ishus (wifehood), and separately, issurim are placed upon her. These two aspects are not totally dependent on each other (zeh b'zeh) - one could theoretically exist without the other. This explains why we need a hekesh to teach that a second person cannot be mekadesh a married woman after someone else has already been mekadesh her. The shiur explores the Avnei Miluim's proof from the Rosh that kiddushin is kesef shivui (an exchange), where if one is mochel a debt used for kiddushin, he must return a pruta's worth to the woman. However, the shiur notes that what the husband acquires (the woman's ishus) has no inherent monetary value - the Torah (תורה) assigns it the value of a pruta to enable the kinyan to function. In contrast, the Pnei Yehoshua maintains that the kinyan and issurim are inseparable. According to one interpretation, the entire purpose of the kinyan is to enable the placing of issurim - one cannot put prohibitions on something unless one first owns it. According to another approach, the Torah automatically creates the issurim as a result of the kinyan. Either way, without the kinyan, no issurim can be created, and therefore a second person cannot be mekadesh her even m'svara (logically), without needing a special hekesh. The shiur addresses the Gemara (גמרא)'s question on the Pnei Yehoshua: if kiddushin doesn't work on a married woman due to the kinyan, why do we need a hekesh to exclude arayos when the same logic should apply to shifcha charufa? Various answers are explored, including that by arayos, the hekesh teaches us that kiddushin creates not just a kinyan but also a special zikah (connection) that cannot be transferred, which would apply equally to shifcha charufa.
Kiddushin
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.
