A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't shtar kiddushin require a shever pruta? The shiur develops the Ran's fundamental approach that shtar kiddushin works as an exchange—she transfers herself for the shtar—distinguishing it from other shtaros and explaining why isur hana'ah cannot work by kiddushin.
This shiur explores the Rif and Ran on Kiddushin 2a-b, analyzing why shtar kiddushin doesn't require a shever pruta. The Rif holds that if a shtar were worth a shever pruta, it would work as kesef, so the shiur must work ein bo shever pruta. The Ran presents the rationale: if it were shever pruta, one couldn't learn from get (ma'aseh vegeirus), because the two are different—hai kadeina v'hai kadeina—an isha wouldn't transfer herself for less than a shever pruta. Rabbi Zweig challenges the standard understanding of the Ran and presents a novel reading. The shiur argues that the essence of shtar kiddushin is fundamentally different from all other shtaros. In normal shtaros—get, shtar shichrur, shtar kinyan—the makneh writes and transfers the shtar. In shtar kiddushin, the chosson writes it. This means the shtar is not a unilateral legal instrument; rather, the woman receives the shtar and in exchange transfers herself (makneh nafsha). Shtar kiddushin is therefore a form of haknah, an exchange akin to kesef, not merely a legal document.
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 2a-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.
