No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna use the language "Isha niknes" (the woman is acquired) versus "Ish mekadesh" (the man sanctifies)? The shiur explores whether kiddushin is a kinyan (acquisition), a ritual, or both. The analysis follows the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion through Rashi (רש"י) and the Baal HaItur's approach, examining how the laws of get relate to kiddushin—particularly regarding nesiná and mechubar—and whether these apply only to shtar kiddushin or also to kesef.
The shiur opens with Rashi (רש"י)'s question on Kiddushin 2a: why does one Mishna say "Isha niknes" (the woman is acquired) while another says "Ish mekadesh" (the man sanctifies her)? Rashi suggests the language inconsistency is deliberate, reflecting a deeper conceptual issue about the nature of marriage—is it kinyan (acquisition) or kedusha (sanctification/ritual)? Rabbi Zweig develops two possible readings of the Gemara (גמרא). The first: kiddushin might be purely a ritual that results in kinyan—the woman becomes acquired, but the mechanism is a spiritual rite. The second: kiddushin might function as an actual kinyan kesef, working just like other kinyanim where money changes hands. The Gemara's answer—"mishum d'kaboilei misney kesef"—is explained by Rashi as teaching that kesef works here because we learn from "kich hakich" (the sale of Machpelah), where kesef accomplished a kinyan. But does this mean kesef itself operates identically in both contexts, or merely that both result in 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 2a
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.
