No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a father receive kiddushin money when his daughter isn't completely leaving his reshus like an ama ivria leaves her master? The Gemara (גמרא)'s gezeira shava seems flawed since the daughter still needs chuppah and remains under some paternal authority. Rashi (רש"י) resolves this by distinguishing between what the husband gains versus what the father ultimately loses through the kiddushin process.
This shiur examines a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 4a that addresses who receives the money when kiddushin is performed—the father or the daughter herself. The Gemara begins with the principle of yitzia d'kavasa, comparing the yitzia (departure/leaving) in kiddushin to that of an ama ivria (Jewish maidservant). Just as by an ama the master (adon) receives no money when she goes free (v'yatza chinam ein kesef), but there exists another yitzia where there is money, so too by kiddushin there should be kesef, and it should go to the father as the parallel to the adon. The Gemara raises a fundamental question: why should this comparison work? The departure of an ama from her master's reshus is complete (lagamri), while by kiddushin the girl hasn't completely left her father's reshus since she still needs chuppah, and her ma'aseh yadayim and inheritance still belong to the father. This creates the kasha of 'v'hala damya hai yitzia l'hai yitzia' - these departures aren't really comparable.
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 4a
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.
