A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the father receive the kiddushin money when a na'arah is betrothed? The shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם): Rashi holds the father must receive the kesef because he is the mekabel kiddushin (the betrothal act must be performed with him), while Rambam holds the girl has her own "yad" (legal capacity) but her father controls her reshus (decision-making authority) regarding marriage. The analysis explores whether kiddushin money is a kinyan mechanism or peiros—payment for what the father loses.
This shiur on Kiddushin 3b explores the Mishna's statement "Av zakai b'vito b'kedushe b'kesef, b'shtar, u'b'bi'ah" — the father acquires rights in his daughter's betrothal through money, document, or relations. The central question is: what exactly does "zakai" mean, and why does the father receive the kiddushin money rather than the daughter herself? The shiur opens by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position. According to Rashi, the father is the "mekabel kiddushin" — the party who must receive the betrothal act. Just as the shtar (document) must be given to the father, so too the kesef (money) must be given to him. The Gemara (גמרא)'s initial question ("ima ledidah" — perhaps it should be to her) is answered by establishing that since the father must receive the act of kiddushin, he must also receive and retain ownership of the money. Rashi emphasizes that "kabbalas kedusheha" — receiving the betrothal — belongs to the father, not merely the money's ownership.
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 3b
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.
