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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
