No community start suggestion yet.
Can ambiguous expressions like 'harei at mekudeshes' (without saying 'to me') create valid kiddushin? A fundamental chakira emerges: is the issue whether unclear language constitutes a valid yad, or whether we can recognize that a ma'aseh kiddushin is taking place at all.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 5b regarding yadayim she'einan mochihos (hands/expressions that are not clear). The central issue is whether ambiguous expressions like 'harei at mekudeshes' (without saying 'li'/'to me') can create a valid kiddushin. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Shmuel's position that yadayim she'einan mochihos lo havei yadayim (unclear expressions don't work), as proven from various cases including the nazir walking before someone. The Gemara establishes that only when there is a nazir over lefanav (a nazir passing by) does saying 'hei' work for nezirus, because it creates a mochichach (clear indication) of intent. Tosafos (תוספות) argues that even without nazir over lefanav, 'hei' constitutes a yad she'einah mochichah because it's more indicative of nezirus than fasting. However, Rashi (רש"י) appears to disagree, focusing on the requirement for yadayim mochihos. The Ridvah provides a different case where someone discusses nezirus, stops talking, and then says 'hei' - this would be a yad she'einah mochichah. The Rosh takes yet another approach, establishing three levels of yadayim she'einan mochihos. A fundamental machloket emerges between two approaches to understanding this issue. The Pnei Yeshua presents two explanations: either we learn the entire din of yadayim from nedarim (where hafla'ah is required), or there's a separate requirement by kiddushin that the ma'aseh kiddushin be nikkar (recognizable). This creates a basic chakira - is the issue about whether the language constitutes a valid yad, or whether we can recognize a ma'aseh kiddushin taking place? The Ridvah's position suggests the latter - that any yad she'einah mochichah constitutes a dibur for kiddushin, but we need additional clarity to recognize the ma'aseh kiddushin. The Rosh disagrees, requiring that the actual language be sufficient. This leads to practical differences, such as in cases where someone was involved in shidduch arrangements and says 'harei at mekudeshes' without 'li' - according to the Ridvah, external evidence of intent would help, while according to the Rosh, it would not.
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.
