A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna exclude chalipin from the methods of kiddushin, and why is this exclusion necessary if chalipin lacks a shaveh perutah? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that chalipin is fundamentally a kinyan rooted in agreement between parties, while kiddushin requires a kinyan that creates a Torah (תורה)-imposed reality. This distinction resolves the Rashbam's challenge and explains why marriage cannot be established through mere consensus.
This in-depth shiur on Kiddushin 3a examines the foundational dispute between Tosafos (תוספות) and Rashi (רש"י) regarding why chalipin (barter) cannot effect kiddushin (betrothal). The Gemara (גמרא) asks why the Mishna needs to explicitly exclude chalipin when it should already be excluded since it can work with less than a shaveh perutah (the minimum monetary value). Tosafos explains that wherever kesef (money) works, chalipin should also work because chalipin is included within the category of kesef. The kasha is that since the Mishna only lists methods explicitly mentioned in the pasuk, and chalipin should be included in kesef, why does the number "three" in the Mishna need to exclude it? The Gemara answers that chalipin is "ish d'poch mi'shav ruta" – since it can work with less than a shaveh perutah, it is not considered kesef but rather a "kinyan acher" (different type of acquisition). The Rashbam challenges this answer: if the teretz is simply that chalipin is not kesef, why does the Gemara add "isha lo mikneh nafsah" (a woman does not acquire herself)? The answer should be complete once we establish it's not 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 3a
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.
