A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a father arranges kiddushin for his minor daughter, who receives the money—father or daughter? The shiur analyzes Kiddushin 3b's discussion of "amaleh dido" and examines the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot: Does the Gemara (גמרא) ask how we know the father receives money for kiddushin (Rashi), or does it ask how we know the father owns his daughter's marriage rights (Tosafot)?
This shiur presents a deep analysis of Kiddushin 3b, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of who receives the money when a minor girl (ketanah) is betrothed through kiddushin. The central question revolves around the meaning of "amaleh dido" - does this mean the money should go to the daughter herself, or does it involve the father's role in some way? The shiur begins by exploring several possible interpretations of "amaleh dido." One possibility is that the money goes directly into the daughter's "bank account" even though the father performs the maaseh kiddushin. Another is that the father receives the money but must then transfer it to her. A third option is that the daughter herself should have the power to marry herself off and receive the money directly. The Gemara's answer comes from the pasuk "es biti natati laish hazeh" (I gave my daughter to this man), which indicates "avi mekabel kedusheha" - the father receives the 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 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.
