A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes incomplete language legally effective? The Gemara (גמרא) debates whether "harei at" (without "li") suffices for kiddushin, paralleling yad she'eino mochach in nazir. The shiur develops that the Rambam (רמב"ם) distinguishes: nazir requires only concrete expression of internal commitment, while neder demands objective language creating legal reality—making nazir machshava-driven and neder dibur-driven.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of yad she'eino mochach—incomplete but legally significant language—as it applies to kiddushin, nazir, and nedarim. The starting point is the Gemara (גמרא)'s question: does saying "harei at mikudeshes" without the word "li" constitute valid kiddushin? Tosafot and the Rosh address Shmuel's apparent contradiction between this case and nazir, where Shmuel requires "nazir ovair lefanav" (a clear indication). The Rosh explains that the Gemara distinguishes between hochacha gemura (complete indication) and hochacha ktza'as (partial indication). Without "li," there is no hochacha at all—not even minimal indication. The Ridvaz offers an alternative reading: the Gemara's question is why Shmuel needed such a strong case (nazir ovair lefanav) when lesser cases of partial hochacha would suffice if yad she'eino mochach were valid.
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 6a
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.
