A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does the principle of arvus (guarantorship) create marriage obligations? The shiur analyzes whether arvus means the woman receives actual monetary benefit when someone spends on her behalf, or whether she receives validation when the man trusts her self-imposed obligation. Two approaches in the Rishonim yield different practical consequences for whether she can withdraw from kiddushin.
This shiur presents an advanced analysis of Kiddushin 6b, examining the fundamental nature of arvus (guarantorship) as a mechanism for marriage acquisition. Rabbi Zweig begins by questioning why the Gemara (גמרא) requires the din of arav when a man instructs someone to give a gift on his behalf to effect kiddushin. When he asks "Ten maneh le'ploni" (give money to so-and-so), he is surely obligating himself to reimburse the expenditure—so why is the Torah (תורה) principle of arvus necessary to establish this obligation? The shiur explores a foundational question: What exactly is arvus? The conventional understanding is that arvus applies when one person performs an action or spends money on behalf of another, creating an obligation for reimbursement. But this raises a difficulty: in Hilchos Mechira (Laws of Sales), the Rambam (רמב"ם) presents a startling case where someone obligates himself in money even though no one gave him anything. A person who says "I am obligated to you for 100 dinars" before witnesses creates a binding monetary obligation, even though everyone—including the witnesses—knows he never borrowed anything. The Rambam states this is derived from the din of arav. How can this be arvus when the fundamental element of receiving something is absent?
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 6b
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.
