A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can the same instrument that creates kiddushin also dissolve it through divorce? The Gemara (גמרא) explores why money (kesef) cannot be used for divorce despite creating marriage, invoking the principle ein sanegor naaseh kateigor. The shiur examines whether kesef functions as a kinyan or as payment, and whether the verbal formula (amira) is intrinsic to the act or merely explanatory.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 5a, focusing on Rava's statement about why money cannot be used for divorce despite its efficacy in creating kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes the principle of "ein sanegor naaseh kateigor" (an advocate cannot become a prosecutor) - that which creates a bond cannot also dissolve it. The central question is why this principle applies to money but not to documents (shtar), which can both create marriage and effect divorce. The shiur presents Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the fundamental difference lies in the role of verbal declaration (amira). By kiddushin performed with money, the words "harei at mekudeshes li" are not merely explanatory but constitute an integral part of the act of kiddushin itself. Since the verbal formulas differ between kiddushin and divorce, they are treated as two distinct acts (hai shtar lechud, hai shtar lechud). Similarly, with money, the different verbal declarations make them functionally separate acts, resolving the apparent contradiction.
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 5a
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.
