A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a marriage with an object worth less than a perutah here but a perutah elsewhere create a doubtful marriage (safek mekudeshes)? The shiur analyzes the principle of shema shava perutah b'modai through multiple lenses — whether it addresses the objective monetary value requirement, the woman's subjective benefit, or the dignity (lack of genai) necessary for valid consent. The Ran and Rambam (רמב"ם) present fundamentally different approaches to the perutah requirement in kiddushin.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kiddushin 12a concerning the principle of shema shava perutah b'modai—when a woman is betrothed with an object worth less than a perutah locally but potentially worth a perutah in another place (Modai). The central question is why this creates a doubtful marriage (safek mekudeshes) rather than either a definite marriage or no marriage at all. Rabbi Zweig begins by raising a fundamental difficulty: the Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a woman's mother testifies that an object used for kiddushin was worth a perutah in Modai. This appears to be classic eidus on a davar shebe'ervah—testimony that would make the woman a married woman (eishes ish) to the first man. Single-witness testimony should not be believed for such matters. The Beis Shmuel is cited as asking why this isn't problematic as davar shebe'ervah, especially since according to the majority view (against Shmuel), there was no valid kiddushin initially, so the testimony is creating married status ex nihilo.
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 12a
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.
