A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a woman is forced into marriage, are we dealing with one halacha (הלכה) or two? The shiur distinguishes between ein isha miskadeshes ela lirtzona (she must want to be an eishes ish) and afkinu rabbanan kidushei minei (annulling forced kiddushin where she rejects the ma'aseh kiddushin itself). The Baal HaItur-Rashba dispute over tluvu konei is analyzed through the lens of whether financial obligations are separate hiskayavus or part of the kinyan.
Rabbi Zweig opens by reviewing the two separate halachos found in the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding marriage by force. The first halacha (הלכה), derived from the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin, establishes the principle of ein isha miskadeshes ela lirtzona—a woman cannot become married unless she wants to become an eishes ish. This is considered a pasuk according to Rashi (רש"י) and the Smag, and possibly a sevara according to the Rambam. The second halacha comes from the Gemara in Bava Basra and is codified in Hilchos Kiddushin: when a woman is forced into a ma'aseh kiddushin but actually wants to be married, the kiddushin is valid bedieved, but there is a din of afkinu rabbanan kidushei minei—the Rabbanan annul the kiddushin. The Rambam Maggid Mishneh explicitly states these are two separate sugyos. The Gemara itself in Kiddushin 2b uses different language: ein isha miskadeshes ela lirtzona is discussed in the sugya of Kiddushin, while mekadesh ish ba'al korcho is discussed in the sugya of Bava Basra (specifically dealing with shotgun weddings where the man is forced). The shiur emphasizes that these are fundamentally different issues—one concerns whether she wants to become an eishes ish at all, the other concerns her acceptance of the specific ma'aseh kiddushin.
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 2b
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.
