A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a woman need to own the kiddushin shtar for it to work as kinyan kesef? The shiur unpacks Rashi (רש"י)'s position that da'as makneh is required before the k'siva, and explores the Ran's proof from gittin that ownership of the paper is necessary. A surprising conclusion emerges: perhaps kinyan kesef works even when the woman doesn't formally acquire ownership—challenging assumptions about what "hana'ah" means in kiddushin.
This shiur examines Kiddushin 9a, focusing on the requirement of da'as makneh in kiddushin via shtar and whether a shtar worth less than a shaveh pruta is valid. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a machlokes between Rav and Ravina versus Rav Papa and Rav Sharvia: does the woman need to have da'as (knowledge/consent) for the kiddushin shtar to be valid? The first group holds da'as makneh is required; the latter holds it is not. Rabbi Zweig begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s formulation: Rashi says the da'as must exist "kodam hak'siva" (before the writing), but then adds "v'achar kach hodiya v'kiblasa" (and afterwards he informed her and she received it). This language is puzzling—if there was no da'as before the k'siva and the kiddushin is pasul, why mention that he informed her afterwards? Rashi must mean there was no da'as before the writing, but there was da'as before the chasima (signing/sealing). This implies a fundamental principle: even according to those who hold da'as is not required before k'siva, everyone agrees da'as must exist before the chasima or mesira (delivery). Without that, the kiddushin would be invalid for all opinions.
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.
