A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do we know that kiddushin can be accomplished with shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) and not just actual kesef (money)? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s proof from eved ivri and nezikin, exploring why two pesukim are needed and why each case cannot be derived from the other. The complex interplay between meitav requirements, voluntary versus forced transactions, and the unique nature of kiddushin is examined.
The shiur begins with an analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation of kiddushin in Hilchos Ishus compared to Rashi (רש"י) and the Braisa. The Rambam uniquely changes the order to "amira and then nesina" (saying followed by giving), departing from the Braisa's "nosein and then omer" (giving followed by saying). This is particularly striking because the Rambam typically codifies exactly what appears in the Gemara (גמרא). The shiur also notes that the Rambam introduces language not found explicitly in the Gemara, such as requiring the formula "harei at mekudeshes li b'zeh" (behold you are betrothed to me with this). The main discussion focuses on Tosafos (תוספות)'s treatment of why the Mishna teaches that shaveh kesef (items of equivalent value) can be used for kiddushin. Tosafos raises the question: we require specific pesukim to teach that shaveh kesef works for eved ivri (Hebrew servant) and for nezikin (damages), as seen from the drashah of "yoshiv l'ra'abo" - why should we assume it works for kiddushin without a similar proof?
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 2a
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.
