A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man marry two women with one pruta using generic language? The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Ishus distinguishes between "harei at mekudeshet li" (generic "you") and "harei Sarah mekudeshet li" (specific name). Only generic language allows "ve'at nami" to work, teaching that kiddushin requires proper linguistic formulation—not just intent or mutual understanding.
This shiur analyzes Rambam (רמב"ם) Hilchos Ishus Perek 3 Halachos 2-3 dealing with the case in the Gemara (גמרא) of a man saying "ve'at nami" (and you as well) when being mekadesh two women. Rabbi Zweig focuses on understanding why the Rambam formulates the halacha (הלכה) in a particular way, addressing several fundamental questions about the nature of kiddushin and the role of language. The shiur begins with a question raised by the Makneh and brought down in the Beis Ephraim: why doesn't the Rambam use the term "shlichus" (agency) when describing the case where a man gives kiddushin money through another person? The Gemara says it's peshita (obvious) that if someone says "harei at mekudeshet li ve'at nami," both women are mekudeshet. Yet the Rambam not only paskens this obvious point but elaborates with "vechein gam at" (and similarly, also you). What is the Rambam teaching?
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!
Nedarim 6b
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.
