A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't kiddushin work when the man gives money and the woman says "Harei at mekudeshes li"? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's resolution: the kinyan itself becomes part of the kiddushin act through kiycha kiycha from Efron, not merely a prerequisite. This reframes the entire dynamic of who must actively perform the maaseh kiddushin and opens a fundamental question about the woman's role—purely passive object or potential active party.
This shiur on Kiddushin 5b addresses a fundamental question in the mechanics of kiddushin: what happens when the man gives money (nasan hu) but the woman makes the declaration of kiddushin (amar hi)? The Gemara (גמרא) seems to say this doesn't work, but the reasoning requires deep analysis. Rabbi Zweig begins by noting an apparent contradiction in Tosfos. One Tosfos states that you need both nasan hu (which we learn from "yotzei chinam ein kesef"—that the father must be eliminated from ownership) and amar hi (from ki yikach—that there must be a declaration). But a later Tosfos asks: if we already have the gezeiras shavah of kiycha kiycha from Sade Efron teaching us kinyan kesef, why do we need ki yikach at all? This suggests that nasan hu alone might be sufficient, creating an internal contradiction in Tosfos.
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.
