No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't making birchas chasanim automatically create nisuin? The Rambam (רמב"ם) teaches that berachos alone don't accomplish nisuin - only knis u'chuppah does. The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that distinguishes between the issur yichud and issur kala belo bracha.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of a fundamental question in hilchos kiddushin: what is the relationship between birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and the accomplishment of nisuin (marriage)? The discussion centers on Rambam (רמב"ם) Hilchos Ishus Perek 10 Halacha (הלכה) 6, which states that if one is me'ares a woman and makes birchas chasanim without being miyuchad with her in her house, she remains an arusah because birchas chasanim don't create nisuin - only knis u'chuppah accomplishes this. Rabbi Zweig explores several fundamental questions arising from this Rambam. First, where does the Rambam derive that berachos could theoretically create nisuin that this needs to be negated? Second, why does the Rambam rule that by a niddah who underwent chuppah, 'ein chozer mevarech' (we don't repeat the blessings) - what does this accomplish if the nisuin wasn't valid? The shiur examines whether this indicates that b'dieved such berachos have some validity.
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.
