No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the husband write the shtar kiddushin while the seller writes the shtar mecher? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira in the mechanics of shtar as kinyan: whether shtar functions as testimony recording what already occurred, or as an active instrument creating the transaction itself. This distinction explains why different kinyanim require different parties to execute the shtar.
The shiur opens with the Gemara (גמרא)'s question on Kiddushin 9a: how can kiddushin work through a shtar written by the husband (baal), when by mecher (sale) the seller (makneh) writes the shtar? The Gemara brings the pasuk "u'machar me'achuzaso" to show that by sale, the seller writes. But this creates a difficulty: if shtar requires the makneh to write it, how can kiddushin work when the husband writes it? Rashi (רש"י) understands the Gemara's question fundamentally: it's not merely asking why they differ, but challenging whether shtar kiddushin can work at all. If the universal principle of shtar is that the makneh writes it, then a shtar written by the konen (acquirer) isn't a valid shtar. This assumes there must be a svara (logical reason) why shtar requires the makneh to write it.
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.
