A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a kiddushin valid when the money and declaration come from different parties? The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s divergent views on whether amira (declaration) is an integral component of ma'aseh kiddushin or merely an explanation of the kinyan, analyzing the sugya of "nasan hu v'omar hi" through the lens of kenyan mechanics versus religious ritual.
The shiur delivers an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 5b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of "nasan hu v'omar hi" — cases where the giving of money and the declaration of kiddushin come from different parties. The central question is whether kiddushin can be valid when the man gives the money but the woman makes the declaration, or vice versa. Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position: kiddushin has two components — ma'aseh (the action) and amira (the declaration). According to the Rambam, the amira is not an independent element of kiddushin but merely serves to define and explain what the ma'aseh accomplishes. The Gemara presents a contradiction between a Reisha and a Seifa, leading to the question of "nasan hu v'omar hi" — what happens when these elements are split between the parties.
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.
