No community start suggestion yet.
Why don't the laws of tanai kafa (double condition) apply to kiddushin that depend on payment? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: tanai is needed only to undo an existing maaseh, but when the tanai itself defines what maaseh is happening, tanai kafa isn't required. This framework resolves the apparent contradiction between the Gemara (גמרא)'s lenient treatment of partial payment in kiddushin and the strict requirements of tanai elsewhere.
Rabbi Zweig addresses a fundamental difficulty in Kiddushin 7b: the Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a man gives partial payment for kiddushin with an understanding that he will complete payment later. Rashi (רש"י) and most Rishonim learn that this involves a tanai (condition), yet the Gemara never mentions the requirement of tanai kafa (double condition) that ordinarily governs all conditional transactions. The Avnei Miluim raises this as a devastating question on the standard reading of the Gemara. The shiur presents a foundational principle to resolve this difficulty. The Torah (תורה)'s law of tanai kafa exists for a specific purpose: "lo asai dibur mevatel maaseh" – speech cannot normally undo an action. When someone performs a kinyan (act of acquisition) or maaseh kiddushin, that act creates a halachic reality. If he wishes to limit or reverse that reality through conditions, he must follow the stringent requirements of tanai kafa. Without proper tanai kafa, the original maaseh remains in effect and the condition is void.
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 7b
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.
