A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the disagreement between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the minimum value for kiddushin—a dinar versus a perutah? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: Beis Shammai requires a dinar for creating the status of an isha (wife with full legal standing), while a perutah suffices only for pilegesh (a relationship without full marital obligations). This resolves Tosafos (תוספות)'s question about the "chumra" of Beis Shammai when a woman accepts kiddushin from another man.
This shiur on Kiddushin 2a tackles fundamental questions about the nature of marriage and the mechanics of kinyan kiddushin. The primary focus is on understanding a difficult Tosafos (תוספות) that asks: if according to Beis Shammai, giving less than a dinar means "einah mekudeshes" (she is not married), why is it considered a "chumra" of Beis Shammai when she accepts kiddushin from someone else? The Ridvaz's answer—that "of course" she can marry someone else if she's not married—seems to make Tosafos's question incomprehensible. The shiur proposes a novel approach by introducing the concept of pilegesh (concubine). Drawing on the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Rashi (רש"י), who describe pilegesh as "kiddushin without kesubah," the shiur argues that even according to Beis Shammai, a perutah creates a valid kinyan—just not the kinyan of isha that requires a full marriage. Rather, it creates the status of pilegesh, a relationship that involves monetary acquisition (unlike other Rishonim who hold pilegesh requires only yichud) but lacks the full legal framework of marriage, including the requirement for a get.
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.
