A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can a man be mashlem (complete) kiddushin later when he gave less than the promised amount? The shiur distinguishes between mona stam (unspecified amount) and mona zu (this specific amount). When you say mona stam and give a dinar, there's an implied promise to complete—the woman trusts you'll deliver, so she agrees to kiddushin. But mona zu with ninety-nine coins creates no promise, and the kiddushin fails entirely.
This shiur on Kiddushin 3b addresses fundamental questions about when kiddushin takes effect when a man promises one amount (a "mona") but delivers a different amount. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion centers on whether the kiddushin is chal (takes effect) immediately or only when the full amount is delivered, and whether the man can later be mashlem (complete the kiddushin) if he initially gave less than promised. The shiur opens by examining Tosfos's approach to the Gemara's kal vachomer argument. Tosfos argues from the Reisha (first clause) that if kiddushin is not chal until the end, then certainly you don't need the entire Sefer (second clause) to establish this principle. However, Rabbi Zweig raises several kashas on Tosfos. First, even if the Reisha discusses mona zu (this specific amount), the same question applies—if it's not chal until later by mona zu in the Reisha, then in the Sefer you also wouldn't be mekudeshes. The kal vachomer would work either way. Second, what purpose does "mona v'holech" (ongoing amount) serve in the Reisha if we're talking about mona zu? The same din would apply without mona v'holech.
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.
