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.
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.
