No community start suggestion yet.
Can a shtar (document) effect kiddushin? The Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer from gerushin faces the problem that a shtar typically flows from the makneh to the koneh—but kiddushin requires the opposite direction. Rashi (רש"י) resolves this by reading the Gemara as discussing an IOU note written by the husband, a fundamentally different application than the standard shtar kinyan.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a regarding whether a shtar (document) can create kiddushin and how the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal vachomer from gerushin works. The shiur opens with the Gemara's attempted kal vachomer: if shtar can effect divorce (gerushin), which is more difficult, then surely it should work for kiddushin. The Gemara challenges this with a pircha: kesef works for pidyon hekdesh and ma'aser sheni, while shtar does not, suggesting kesef is actually stronger than shtar. Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental problem: the kal vachomer itself seems impossible. In all of Torah (תורה) law, shtar kinyan flows from the makneh (seller) to the koneh (buyer). But kiddushin requires the opposite—the husband must give to the wife based on "ki yikach." How can a kal vachomer create an entirely new type of shtar that doesn't exist anywhere else? A kal vachomer cannot invent a mutation; it can only extend existing paradigms.
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 5a
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.
