No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the mocher write the shtar by mekach u'memkar, while the chatan writes the shtar by kiddushin? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s comparison between these two types of shtarot, exploring whether shtar works as a raya (proof) or as a demonstration of seriousness, and develops the Ran's insight that kiddushin is fundamentally different—the woman cannot transfer ownership she never had; rather, the husband creates new ownership.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Kiddushin 9a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question: why does the shtar of mekach u'memkar (sales document) follow different rules than the shtar of kiddushin? The Gemara begins by stating that even if the shtar kiddushin lacks a shaveh prutah, if it contains the language "harei at mekudeshes li," "harei at me'ureses li," or "harei li l'ishah," it is valid—meaning the chatan writes it, not the kallah or her father. The Gemara challenges this by comparing shtar kiddushin to shtar mekach u'memkar, where the mocher (seller) writes the document. The shiur carefully examines Rashi (רש"י)'s approach to understanding this question: Rashi learns that the Gemara is asking how we know shtar kiddushin is a valid shtar at all, given that it doesn't follow the paradigm of shtar mekach u'memkar where the makneh writes it. The alternative reading of the question is simply: why do these two types of shtarot differ—why is one written by the makneh and the other by the koneh?
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.
