No community start suggestion yet.
Does kiddushin through bi'ah take effect at the beginning (ha'ara'ah) or completion (gemar bi'ah) of the act? The shiur argues that the Gemara (גמרא)'s question is not about splitting a single ma'aseh in half, but rather: when a complete ma'aseh bi'ah is performed, does the kinyan take effect retroactively from the beginning or only at the end? This framework resolves major difficulties in Tosafos (תוספות) and addresses the machlokes between the Rashba and Rabeinu Tam.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Kiddushin 10a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question: does kiddushin through bi'ah take effect at the beginning (techilat bi'ah/ha'ara'ah) or completion (gemar bi'ah/sof bi'ah) of the act? Rabbi Zweig develops a novel approach to understanding the entire sugya. The shiur opens with several major difficulties on the Gemara and Rishonim. First, on the Gemara itself: the Gemara asks whether one can be mekadesh through bi'ah when it's forbidden (such as a Kohen Gadol with a be'ulah). The Gemara assumes that normally "kol ha'bo'el da'ato al gemar bi'ah" - when one engages in bi'ah, his intent is for complete bi'ah. But if so, why should there be any question? We already know from issurei arayos that gemar bi'ah is what creates the issur, so why would kiddushin be any different? The Gemara provides no explicit source for why kiddushin might work differently. This represents a fundamental gap in the Gemara's reasoning.
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.
