A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a man says "be betrothed to me with a manah" but only gives a dinar now, is the woman married immediately or only when she receives the full amount? The shiur examines Rav's position that she is married immediately on the assumption he'll complete payment, exploring why both parties would agree to such an arrangement and the conceptual difference between "manah zu" (this specific manah) versus "manah stam" (a generic manah).
This shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 8a dealing with a case where a man betroths a woman saying "be betrothed to me with a manah" but only gives her a dinar immediately. The central question is whether the kiddushin (betrothal) takes effect right away or only when she receives the full manah. Rav's position is that she is mekudeshes (betrothed) immediately, based on the assumption that both parties are serious about the marriage. Since the man said "manah" but gave a dinar, we don't assume he's playing games; rather, we assume he intends to complete the payment (v'yashlim). The Gemara operates on the principle of "kol man d'amar lo amanas dami" - anyone who makes such a statement, we treat it as if he's saying "on condition" that he'll give the rest.
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 8a
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.
