A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does marriage by shtar (document) require the document to be worth a pruta? The shiur develops the Ran's approach that shtar kiddushin is fundamentally an exchange—not merely a legal declaration—meaning it must have some value but less than a pruta suffices. This contrasts with gittin, where the document itself creates the divorce without requiring monetary value.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental nature of kiddushei shtar (marriage via document) through an in-depth examination of Kiddushin 3a-b and the machlokes Rishonim regarding whether the shtar must contain a shever pruta (minimum monetary value). The shiur opens by presenting three positions among the Rishonim: (1) mechubar (attached property) is invalid for shtar kiddushin but valid for kesef kiddushin (the Ran's first approach); (2) mechubar is invalid for both shtar and kesef kiddushin; (3) the Rashba in one teshuva (תשובה) holds mechubar is valid even for shtar kiddushin. The Gaon in siman 32 brings proof from a Tosefta that marriage with yerek idachas (vegetables from orlah) would be invalid only because they're assur b'hana'ah, implying that if permitted, even shtar kiddushin with mechubar would be 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 3a-b
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.
