No community start suggestion yet.
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.
This shiur analyzes the Ran's commentary on Kiddushin 3b, examining the nature of kiddushei shetar and its relationship to kiddushei kesef. The Ran discusses the Rif's position regarding shetar she'ein bo shevah pruta (a document worth less than a pruta) and brings the Yerushalmi that states if a shetar has a shevah pruta, it functions through kesef rather than shetar. The Ran presents two approaches to understanding the Rif. The first pshat suggests the Rif is explaining how we know shetar she'ein bo shevah pruta is valid: since if it had a shevah pruta it would already work through kesef, the din of shetar must apply specifically when it lacks a shevah pruta. This approach learns that we derive shetar from get, where isuri hana'ah is kosher, suggesting the same should apply to kiddushin.
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 3b
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.
Why does a nesuah (married woman) eat terumah while an aruseh (betrothed woman) does not, if both involve kinyan kaspo? The Gemara analyzes whether chupah creates a stronger kinyan or introduces a new din of ishut (living together). The discussion explores the machlokes Rav and Shmuel about yibum be'oness, and how the Rambam understands both kinyan and ishut working together in chupah.
