No community start suggestion yet.
Does a shtar kiddushin function like a shtar get (certificate), or is it fundamentally a kinyan requiring value? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between the Ran and Ba'al Itur on the nature of makish havaya l'yetzi'ah, exploring whether mechaber is kosher for kiddushin and whether issur hana'ah invalidates the shtar—questions that turn on whether shtar kiddushin operates as hilchos kinyanim.
This shiur, the second part in the series on kiddushei isha b'shtar, focuses on a fundamental question: What is the nature of a shtar kiddushin? Is it merely a certificate of marriage, parallel to a get (certificate of divorce), or is it a mechanism of kinyan that requires actual value transfer? This question drives several major disputes among the Rishonim and has far-reaching practical implications. The shiur begins by examining the Yerushalmi's teaching that kiddushin can be accomplished with a shtar even if it has no value (pachas mi'shaveh perutah). The Ran explains that while kesef kiddushin requires a shaveh perutah, shtar kiddushin does not—because the shtar itself contains elements of kinyan derived from makish havaya l'yetzi'ah. The woman must be makneh (transfer) herself to the husband, so there must be some value, but even less than a shaveh perutah suffices. This stands in contrast to get, which is purely ba'al korcha (unilateral) and requires no value at all.
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.
