No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a shtar function as a valid method of kinyan? The shiur develops two approaches: shtar works because it accurately records the transaction that occurred, or alternatively because it demonstrates the seriousness of intent. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that written testimony is invalid mi'pi k'savam creates a fundamental difficulty for understanding shtar as a proof-based kinyan.
This shiur explores the fundamental nature of how a shtar (document) functions as a kinyan, analyzing Gemara (גמרא) Kiddushin 9a. The central question is what makes a shtar an effective method of acquisition—whether in kiddushin or in mekach u'memkar (buying and selling). The Gemara raises a difficulty from the language of pesukim. The pasuk for kiddushin says "ki yikach isha" (when a man takes a woman), suggesting the husband actively acquires. Yet the pasuk for mekach u'memkar says "v'sadeh b'kesef yikaneh" (and a field shall be acquired with money), using passive language that could suggest the buyer receives rather than actively acquires. The Gemara initially suggests that perhaps we should read the kiddushin pasuk as "Yaakov" (passive) to match the structure of the mekach u'memkar pasuk, implying the woman gives herself over.
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.
