A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does kesef work by ama ivria but biya doesn't, while both work by kiddushin? The Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba challenge the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer learning kiddushin from ama ivria, since ama ivria ain kinyan l'shem ishus. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: ama ivria creates ownership that entitles one to ishus, while kiddushin is a ma'aseh ishus itself—not ownership but relationship.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin that attempts to derive the kinyan of kesef by kiddushin from a kal vachomer comparing ama ivria and kiddushin. The Gemara argues that since kesef works by ama ivria and biya does not, certainly by isha—where the kinyan is lighter—kesef should work. The Gemara raises a pircha: ma la ama ivria she'kein ain kinyan l'shem ishus—ama ivria is unique because it is not a kinyan of ishus. Rabbi Zweig presents the Ramban (רמב"ן) and Rashba's fundamental question: why doesn't the Gemara ask this pircha immediately? If ama ivria is not a kinyan l'shem ishus, then the entire kal vachomer is undermined from the start—you cannot compare a kinyan of ownership (ama ivria) to a kinyan of relationship (ishus). This seems like a much stronger challenge than the technical pircha the Gemara does raise (she'kein yotzei b'kesef).
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 4a-b
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.
