No community start suggestion yet.
Does kinyan beer (acquisition through benefit) require hana'ah (enjoyment), and how does it work alongside kesef? The shiur addresses a question from the Shaarei Yosher about beer without hana'ah, exploring whether beer is an independent kinyan or simply a form of kesef, and ultimately applying this to the dual nature of kiddushin—kinyan versus ishut.
The shiur opens with a shaila from the Shaarei Yosher: How can kiddushei ish lo kidarka (non-standard marital relations) work if there is no hana'ah (benefit/enjoyment)? This leads to a fundamental question about kinyan beer (acquisition through providing benefit)—does beer need hana'ah to work as a valid kinyan, and if so, why does the Gemara (גמרא) need a separate pasuk for beer when it could simply work as kesef (monetary acquisition)? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental principle: For something to be considered "giving" in the framework of kinyan kesef, the giver must be transferring value, not merely "using" the recipient. When a man is intimate with a woman, he is arguably "taking" or "using" her rather than giving her something. The hana'ah she receives is incidental—she is producing her own benefit. This cannot constitute kinyan kesef because the essence of kesef is giving something of value. This explains why beer requires its own pasuk—it establishes a kinyan even in cases where the benefit to the recipient is not the kind of "giving" that would qualify as kesef.
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 9b
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.
