A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What is the fundamental difference between kiddushin with "mana zu" (this specific sum) and "mana stam" (an unspecified sum)? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the distinction turns on whether the kiddushin takes effect immediately upon partial payment or only upon completion, contrasting this with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s understanding that mana zu requires the full sum as the kinyan itself.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a fundamental sugya in Kiddushin 8a concerning the mechanism of kiddushin through kesef (money) and the critical distinction between "mana zu" (this specific hundred coins) and "mana stam" (a hundred coins, unspecified). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses Rav Elazar's position that when a man betroths a woman with a mana (a hundred dinarim) given incrementally (mana v'chalech), either party may retract until the final coin is delivered. Rabbi Zweig opens with a close reading of Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary, questioning whether Rashi means that the kiddushin takes effect immediately (miyad nekudat has) or that the money must be given immediately (nekudat has miyad). This textual ambiguity sets the stage for understanding the entire sugya. The shiur carefully distinguishes between two possible readings: does Rashi require immediate delivery as a condition for kiddushin to take effect, or does Rashi mean that when delivery is immediate, the kiddushin is effective immediately?
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 8a
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.
