No community start suggestion yet.
When a man asks "Will you marry me if I give you this?" and the woman responds "hav" (give it), is she accepting kiddushin or refusing? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s puzzling formulation and the fundamental machloket between the Rashba (a question requires a proper answer; "hav" is not an answer, hence "no") and the Ran (who holds it depends on dibur kamah kasamach—what she said first).
The shiur opens with an analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation in Hilchos Ishus, noting several difficulties. First, the Rambam cites the double lashon case ("hav hav") when the Gemara (גמרא)'s chiddush was actually the single lashon case—since the maskana is that even a single "hav" is eina mekudeshes, why does the Rambam emphasize the double lashon? Second, in the first case the Rambam presents a straightforward question, but in the second case he combines a question with a statement ("If I give you this, will you be mekudeshes to me?"), which sounds like both a question and a declaration together. This appears to be the very case the Ran discusses—where you combine question and statement—yet the Rambam rules she is not mekudeshes, seemingly contradicting the Ran. Furthermore, the Rambam appears to contradict himself by treating the two cases differently. The shiur then raises a fundamental question on the Gemara itself: if the halacha (הלכה) follows the view that even a single lashon of "hav" is eina mekudeshes (and a single lashon is a stronger case than a double lashon), why does the Gemara present the case with a double lashon? The Gemara should have stated the single lashon case from the outset, since that is both the halacha and the more powerful case. This leads into the question of what chiddush each of the three cases in the Gemara (eating, drinking, and other things) is meant to teach, which is also Tosafos (תוספות)'s question.
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 8b-9a
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.
