No community start suggestion yet.
Does kinyan shtar (acquisition through document) in kiddushin require das makneh (the seller's/makneh's knowledge), and if so, why? The Gemara (גמרא) derives from "mechir achuzaso" that shtar must be written by the macher (seller). Rabbi Zweig develops the yesod that shtar operates as a declaratory kinyan—the words themselves create the acquisition—not merely as proof. This explains why the makneh must participate and why kiddushin follows the same structure as shtar.
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 9a, focusing on a fundamental question in the nature of kinyan shtar (acquisition via document): does it require das makneh (the knowledge and participation of the one effectuating the kinyan), and what is the source of this requirement? The Gemara (גמרא) presents two approaches: either the kinyan of get (divorce document) follows the model of kinyan zinin (straightforward kinyan), or we establish it based on makam savaya tzad gogi (a parallel principle of acquisition). Rabbi Zweig explains that there are two distinct halachic dimensions to kiddushin: the get aspect (which teaches that a document is valid for kiddushin) and the kiddushin aspect proper (which establishes the modes of kinyan). The fact that a document works for kiddushin is derived from the parallel to get. But the internal structure of how that document functions—whether it operates as a kinyan, whether it requires das makneh—is learned from the laws of kiddushin themselves, particularly from kesef and shtar zivna.
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.
