No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna say 'pruta v'shaveh pruta' instead of just 'shaveh pruta'? Rashi (רש"י) reveals that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel don't just disagree about quantity of money needed for kiddushin—they disagree about the definition of kesef itself. This fundamental machloket about whether kesef means literal silver or any monetary value has practical implications for determining modern equivalents of shaveh pruta.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6b, focusing on a fundamental question about the nature of kesef (money) in kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) asks why the Mishna says 'pruta v'shaveh pruta' instead of just 'shaveh pruta,' when elsewhere it simply says 'shaveh pruta.' Rashi (רש"י) explains this is because the word 'kesef' in the Mishna requires clarification - which kesef? A dinar according to Beit Shammai or a pruta according to Beit Hillel. Rabbi Zweig explores two fundamentally different understandings of the machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The simple understanding is that they argue about the quantity of money needed for kiddushin - how much kesef is required. However, Rashi suggests a deeper interpretation: they actually disagree about the definition of kesef itself. According to this view, Beit Shammai holds that only a dinar qualifies as kesef, while Beit Hillel holds that even a pruta is considered kesef. This is why the Mishna says 'b'eizeh kesef' (which kesef) rather than 'b'kamah kesef' (how much kesef).
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.
