No community start suggestion yet.
How does an arev (guarantor) become obligated when he receives nothing tangible? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: arev creates an actual monetary debt (chov mammon) the moment the loan is made, whereas schirus (hired service) generates only a binding promise to pay. This difference explains why kiddushin can work through arev but not through ordinary service arrangements.
This shiur presents a sophisticated analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 7a concerning the mechanism of arev (guarantorship) and how a woman can be mekadesh (betrothed) through it. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental conceptual framework distinguishing between different types of financial obligations in halacha (הלכה). The Gemara discusses the case where a woman says "tain mon l'ploni v'hakadeish ni loch" (give money to this person and I will be betrothed to you). The central question is: how does this create kiddushin when the woman receives nothing directly? The Gemara learns that arev works from a passuk, but asks how arev can be valid given the problem of asmachta (a conditional commitment that may not be binding). The Gemara answers that arev works through "hana" – benefit – which removes the asmachta problem.
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 7a
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.
