A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) cite the pasuk that includes a get to teach kiddushin by kesef? Rashi (רש"י) explains: the get clause proves we're learning about an ishah, not a pilegesh. The shiur explores the difference: kiddushin with commitment to nisuin (requiring get) versus kinyan for bi'ah alone, and analyzes the Kal vachomer for kesef against the pircha from yevamah.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kiddushin 4b, beginning with the Tanna's derivation that kiddushin is accomplished through kesef from the pasuk "Ki yikach ish ishah u'va'alah." The Gemara cites Devarim 24 which continues "v'haya im lo simtza chen be'einav...v'chasav lah sefer kreisos." Rashi (רש"י) immediately asks: why does the Gemara quote a pasuk about divorce (get) when teaching the din of acquiring an ishah through kesef? Rashi explains that the reference to get is crucial to establish that the pasuk speaks of ishah—a married woman requiring a get—rather than pilegesh, which according to Rashi's view is kiddushin b'li kesubah and does not require a get. The shiur clarifies that kiddushin means creating a commitment to nisuin. When a woman is mekudeshes with kesubah (commitment to nisuin), she becomes "beiso" immediately—she is part of his household, able to eat terumah or korban kodashim. This relationship requires surgery—kreisos—to dissolve it. Pilegesh, by contrast, is a kinyan for bi'ah alone without commitment to nisuin, and thus does not necessitate sefer kreisos. Rashi's proof that the pasuk speaks of ishah is that a get is mentioned, showing the Torah (תורה) is addressing a full kiddushin relationship, not pilegesh.
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 4b
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.
