No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a father entitled to his daughter's kiddushin money? Rashi (רש"י) holds the father only has authority over the marriage act but no property right; he can demand payment upfront but cannot collect afterward. Tosafos (תוספות) argues the father actually owns his daughter's virginity as property—making kiddushin a sale, not merely consent backed by leverage.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the nature of a father's rights over his daughter's kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 3b grapples with the source for the halacha (הלכה) that when a girl is a ketanah or na'arah, her father receives the kiddushin money and effectuates the kiddushin. The central question is not merely procedural but conceptual: what is the exact nature of the father's relationship to his daughter's kiddushin? Rabbi Zweig introduces six major questions (kashas) from Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Tosafos, systematically exploring the logical difficulties in deriving both the father's authority to effectuate kiddushin and his entitlement to the money. The Gemara attempts to learn this from "ha'poreis nidar" (annulling vows), but encounters the principle that one cannot derive monetary law (mamona) from ritual prohibition (issur). Tosafos addresses this by establishing a fundamental principle: whoever performs the act of kiddushin must also receive the money. These two elements—the act and the ownership—cannot be separated.
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.
