A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father receive boshet u'pegam payments when a na'arah is violated? Tosafos (תוספות) rejects Rashi (רש"י)'s monetary explanation and argues the Gemara (גמרא) establishes ba'alut (ownership) through the father's power to cause embarrassment. This ba'alut, not the act of kiddushin itself, entitles him to kiddushin money even when she marries herself.
This shiur presents a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on Kiddushin 3b regarding the nature of a father's rights over his na'arah daughter. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to learn that kiddushin money goes to the father from the fact that boshet u'pegam (shame and degradation payments) go to the father. The Gemara rejects this comparison with "shani boshet u'pegam d'guf shayach b'gavah" - boshet u'pegam is different because it relates to the father's connection to her body. Rashi explains this means the father can marry her off to a contemptible person (menuval u'mekusheh) for more money, establishing his financial interest. Tosafos raises a devastating question: this creates circular reasoning. We're trying to prove the father gets kiddushin money from boshet u'pegam, but the only reason boshet u'pegam goes to the father is because he can do kiddushin. How can we derive kiddushin from boshet u'pegam when boshet u'pegam itself is only known from kiddushin?
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 3b
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.
