A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is kiddushin invalid when the man gives the money silently and the woman says "Hareini mekudeshes lach"? The Rashba's position is analyzed: Ki Yikach requires witnessing the husband's act of taking, not just mutual intent to marry. The shiur contrasts this with gittin and resolves apparent contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם).
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Hilchos Kiddushin: the case of "nasan hu v'amrah hi"—where the man gives money silently and the woman declares "Hareini mekudeshes lach" (I am betrothed to you). The Rashba holds this is invalid, and Rabbi Zweig explores the mechanics behind this ruling. The shiur begins with Rav Kivager's question on the Rashba. The Rashba initially states that nasan hu v'amrah hi is a chisaron (deficiency) of "ki yikach v'lo ki sikach"—the Torah (תורה) requires the man to "take" the woman in marriage, not the woman to "take" the man. But the Rashba also says there is a chisaron in the eidus (testimony). Rav Kivager asks: if the problem is who performs the ma'aseh kiddushin, why invoke a chisaron in eidus? And if the problem is deficient eidus, why mention ki yikach v'lo ki sikach?
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 5b
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.
