No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a kiddushin formula valid? The Gemara (גמרא) on Kiddushin 6a debates whether kiddushin terms must describe the marriage kinyan itself or whether alluding to aspects of marriage (like procreation or unity) suffices. The shiur explores when language that merely references marriage consequences rather than the act creates a valid kiddushin.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 6a, examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of which verbal formulations create a valid kiddushin. The central question is whether kiddushin language must directly describe the marriage kinyan (acquisition) itself, or whether it is sufficient to use language that merely describes an aspect or consequence of marriage. The Gemara presents two groups of kiddushin formulations. The first group includes direct statements of the marriage relationship or kinyan. The second group consists of phrases that allude to marriage but don't directly state the kinyan—such as references to having children ("you shall have children") or to the unity between man and woman. Rabbi Zweig explores whether these indirect references are sufficient because they describe essential aspects of marriage, even though they don't describe the act of kiddushin itself.
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 6a
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.
