No community start suggestion yet.
Does the Torah (תורה)'s requirement of biah for kiddushin take effect at the beginning (tehilas biah) or completion (sof biah) of the act? The shiur develops the fundamental principle that one continuous act cannot be divided into separate legal moments unless explicitly interrupted. This yesod explains the Gemara (גמרא)'s question, the status of a Kohen Gadol's kiddushin, and the machlokes Rishonim on whether one can effect kiddushin through harah alone.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental question in Kiddushin 10a regarding when the act of biah (marital relations) effects kiddushin. The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether tehilas biah (the beginning of the act) or sof biah (the completion) creates the halachic acquisition. Rabbi Zweig presents this as not merely a technical question about timing, but rather a fundamental inquiry into how the Torah (תורה) defines "u'ba'alah" - does it mean the act must be completed, or does completion make the beginning retroactively effective? The shiur establishes a critical yesod: one continuous maaseh (act) cannot be divided into multiple legal moments. Just as one act of tearing on Shabbos (שבת) or one act with an ervah generates only one korban regardless of duration, a single maaseh biah is one legal event. The Gemara's question is whether this single event takes effect at its start (retroactively, once completed) or at its conclusion.
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 10a
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.
