No community start suggestion yet.
How does kinyan shtar work for kiddushin? The sugya probes whether the husband (koneh) or the woman (mocher) must write the shtar, drawing on contradictory pesukim and resolving via halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai. A core tension emerges: if shtar must be worth a shaveh pruta, wouldn't it already qualify as kesef?
This shiur examines Kiddushin 9a, focusing on the mechanics of kinyan shtar in kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) begins by establishing that even if the shtar is written on something intrinsically valueless—like earthenware not worth a shaveh pruta—the woman is still mekudeshes, because shtar is a distinct kinyan independent of monetary value. This raises a fundamental question: why does the Gemara emphasize "even though it's not worth a shaveh pruta"? If it were worth a shaveh pruta, it would already be valid as kesef, not shtar. Rabbi Zweig explores the Ran's treatment of this apparent redundancy and its implications. The central sugya revolves around who must write the shtar—the koneh (husband) or the mocher (wife). The Gemara cites conflicting pesukim: by mekach u'memkar, "umocher mikchu zazo" suggests the seller writes it; by kiddushin, "ki yikach" suggests the husband (koneh) does. Yet another pasuk, "sadeh bekesef yiknu," seems to imply the buyer (koneh) writes it even in mekach u'memkar. The Gemara attempts to resolve this by proposing alternate readings—"kari b'yachad" (transfer it) or "ki yukach" (he shall be taken)—but these too can be inverted. Rava's resolution is striking: it is halacha (הלכה) l'Moshe miSinai that by mekach u'memkar the mocher writes the shtar, and by kiddushin the koneh does; the pesukim are merely asmachta, not the actual source.
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 9a
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.
