No community start suggestion yet.
Can chuppah effect kiddushin through a kal vachomer? The shiur analyzes the debate between Abaye and Rava: Abaye learns from kesef using chuppah's ability to be gomer as a mere chumra ketana, while Rava requires learning from an existing kinyan. The machlokes hinges on whether you can derive a kinyan from a tzad chomer or need mei'ein hadin.
This shiur continues analyzing the sugya in Kiddushin 5b regarding whether chuppah can effect kiddushin through a kal vachomer. The fundamental question is whether hachnasah l'rishus (bringing into one's domain), which works as a kinyan in other contexts, should also work for erusin (betrothal). The Gemara (גמרא) presents Rav's question challenging this kal vachomer through two approaches: the problem of shalos feloy arab (sending property versus sending a person), and the principle that kesef (money) only works after another kesef has already been given, not as a repeatable kinyan. Abaye responds that shalos feloy arab is explicitly written in the Torah (תורה) regarding eved ivri, so it's not problematic. Regarding the kesef argument, Abaye argues that kesef itself doesn't work after kesef either, so this objection applies equally to 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 5b
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.
