A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can chuppah alone create erusin? The Gemara (גמרא)'s kal v'chomer from kesef to chuppah faces a fundamental challenge: all kinyanei kiddushin work ba'al korach, but chuppah doesn't. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach distinguishes between chuppah of a ketana (which is a kinyan ba'al korach) and chuppah of a gedola (which establishes ishus/relationship but not ba'al korach).
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal v'chomer argument at the beginning of Masechta Kiddushin regarding whether chuppah should be able to create erusin, not just nisuin. Rabbi Zweig develops a novel reading of Rashi (רש"י) that fundamentally reframes the entire sugya. The Gemara begins with a kal v'chomer: if kesef, which is not ma'achal b'trumah (doesn't enable the arusa to eat terumah), can nevertheless create kiddushin, then chuppah, which is ma'achal b'trumah (does enable eating terumah), should certainly be able to create kiddushin. The Gemara challenges this: all the kinyanim of erusin (kesef, shtar, bi'ah) work ba'al korach (against the will of the girl), whereas chuppah does not work ba'al korach. Rav Huna responds that kesef is indeed ma'achal b'trumah.
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 5a-b
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.
