No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) rule both nasan hi v'amar hu and nasan hu v'amra hi are invalid kiddushin? The shiur demonstrates that nasan hi v'amar hu fails because we cannot know the giver's intent, while nasan hu v'amra hi fails because the man must actively give (not merely have the woman take). A profound analysis of Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of safek kiddushin follows: mid'oraysa she is treated as the first man's wife, yet kiddushin from a second man may not be chol mid'oraysa—requiring gittin from both only mid'Rabbanan.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya on Kiddushin 5b dealing with nasan hu v'amra hi and nasan hi v'amar hu, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak and Rashi (רש"י)'s revolutionary interpretation of safek kiddushin. The Rambam in Hilchos Ishus (Perek Gimel, Halacha (הלכה) Beis) rules that both nasan hi v'amar hu (she gives, he says harei at mekudeshes li) and nasan hu v'amra hi (he gives, she says harei ani mekudeshes lach) are invalid as kiddushin. The shiur addresses a fundamental question: if the Rambam invalidates nasan hi v'amar hu because the man didn't perform the act of giving (ma'aseh kinyan), why does he also need to invalidate nasan hu v'amra hi? And if the problem with nasan hi v'amar hu is that we don't know what the woman intends (since her amirah cannot define her netinah), then how could nasan hu v'amra hi ever be a safek—it should be vadai pasul for the same reason.
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 5b
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.
