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.
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.
