No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shtar kiddushin work like a standard shtar (documentary transfer) or like kesef (exchange requiring value)? The shiur develops the Ran's position that shtar kiddushin functions as a hakanah—a form of exchange—where the chosson gives the kallah the shtar and she acquires herself to him in return. This explains why pachas mishaveh pruta works but isur hana'ah does not: exchange requires some minimal value, and the shtar's words provide that, but isur hana'ah offers nothing at all.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Ran's understanding of shtar kiddushin on Kiddushin 9a-b, focusing on the conceptual nature of how shtar works as a mode of kiddushin and whether it requires the document to have the value of a shaveh pruta. The Gemara (גמרא) states that shtar kiddushin is valid even if the document itself is worth less than a shaveh pruta (afilu she'ein bo shaveh pruta). The Ran asks: what is the source for this halacha (הלכה)? One possibility is to derive it via hekesh (comparison) from the laws of get (divorce document), using the principle of makish havaya l'yetziya (equating the laws of marriage to divorce). The Gemara in Gittin teaches that a get written on isur hana'ah (an item from which the recipient is forbidden to derive benefit) is valid. By extension, one might think shtar kiddushin should similarly not require shaveh pruta.
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-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.
