No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need a special din of arev to validate kiddushin when the woman says "give money to someone else"? The shiur distinguishes between mamoni gabach (which works for acquisitions but not kiddushin) and actual maaseh kiddushin. The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds you need real hana'ah as shevach v'kesef, while the Rashba attributes the actual nesinas mamon to the woman herself.
The shiur opens with the Pnei Yehoshua's fundamental question: if kiddushin through arev works, why do we need the special din of arev at all? The case of "tein maneh l'ploni v'kadash ani lach" (give money to someone else and I'll be betrothed to you) should work on the simple principle that it's hana'ah—she benefits from his willingness to spend money at her direction. Yet the Gemara (גמרא) derives a special din from arev (guarantorship). Why is this necessary? Rabbi Zweig identifies two fundamental approaches among the Rishonim regarding the basis of arev. The Ridvaz holds that arev works because you listened to me and spent money on my behalf—the very fact that you trust me enough to expend funds creates the obligation. The Rashba appears to hold that it's the recipient's receiving that matters—when the third party (C) receives the money, it's as if I (A) received it myself, since I directed it there.
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 7a
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.
