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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
