A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman be divorced with money, just as she is married with it? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s logic in Kiddushin 4b–5a, examining whether shtar and kesef function as kinyanim (legal acquisitions) or as religious rituals, and what the principle "ein kateigor na'aseh saneigor" (the prosecutor cannot become the defender) means when applied to divorce law. Rashi (רש"י)'s and the Rashbam's competing readings clarify the mechanics of shtar hakneh.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Masechta Kiddushin (4b–5a) that explores whether kiddushin and gittin operate primarily under hilchos kinyanim (the laws of acquisition) or as religious/legal rituals. The focal point is the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer that attempts to derive shtar (a document) as a valid means of kiddushin from kesef (money), and a corresponding hekesh from the pasuk of "v'yatzah v'chaysah" that compares marriage and divorce. The shiur opens with the Gemara's language "m'nayin she'af b'shtar" — how do we know even a shtar works? Rabbi Zweig points out that the word "af" (even) suggests that shtar is a weaker kinyan than kesef, which only makes sense if we are operating within hilchos kinyanim. If shtar were merely a religious document of divorce (like a get), there would be no logical basis for a kal vachomer from kesef to shtar—they would be fundamentally different categories. Therefore, at this stage in the Gemara, shtar must be understood as a shtar hakneh (a document of acquisition), not a religious divorce document.
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 4b-5a
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.
