No community start suggestion yet.
Does the money at kiddushin function as a kinyan (acquisition) or as a religious ceremony? The Gemara (גמרא)'s havamina suggests it's a ritual, not payment for ownership, explaining why the father receives money even though the daughter hasn't left his reshus. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach implies the act itself is ceremonial, while the Torah (תורה) creates the legal consequences.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kiddushin 4b regarding the nature of the money exchanged at kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts to derive that a na'arah's kiddushin money goes to her father from the pasuk "min ha'ner beis aviv," but encounters difficulties comparing this to yetzias odon (the maidservant leaving her master's domain). The core difficulty addressed is Rashi (רש"י)'s position that theoretically the woman could give the money to the man for kiddushin. Tosafos (תוספות) questions this, noting that the word "kiddushin" doesn't apply to the man—he isn't mekudeshes. But Rabbi Zweig raises a deeper problem: if she gives the money, she would be acquiring him, which contradicts the entire Torah (תורה) framework of marriage where the husband owns the wife (eishes ish), not vice versa. This would undermine the concepts of get (divorce) and the prohibition of eishes ish.
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.
