No community start suggestion yet.
Why would one need sheva brachos when being mekadesh a woman through biya, which seems like the most legitimate case? The shiur analyzes three approaches: Rashi (רש"י) holds both chuppah and bracha are needed to permit biya, the Rambam (רמב"ם) views bracha as part of the chuppah itself, while Tosafos (תוספות) distinguishes between biya l'shem chuppah (permitted without bracha) and subsequent intimate relations (requiring bracha).
This shiur examines Kesubos 7b's discussion of birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) in Yehuda, focusing on a fundamental question: if someone lives with a woman l'shem chuppah (for the purpose of marriage), why would Tosafos (תוספות) say no bracha is needed, when this seems like the most legitimate case requiring blessings? The analysis reveals three distinct approaches among the Rishonim. Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that the issur (prohibition) applies to yichud itself with an unmarried woman, and kala belo bracha means one needs two things to permit biya: chuppah and bracha. According to Rashi, both are necessary matirim (permitting factors) - the chuppah and the bracha together permit even the first biya.
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!
Kesubos 7b
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.
