No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly do birchas chasanim accomplish at erusin, and why are they permitted if an arusah remains forbidden to her husband? The shiur develops the tension between Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the bracha removes the issur yichud and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s view that she retains arusah status. This leads to fundamental questions about whether chuppah is d'oraisa or d'rabanan.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 8a regarding birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and their relationship to the prohibition of yichud with an arusah (betrothed woman). The primary tension emerges from comparing different authorities' understanding of what these blessings accomplish. Rashi (רש"י)'s position presents the first approach: he maintains that birchas chasanim at erusin remove the rabbinic prohibition of yichud with an arusah. According to Rashi, an arusah has the same yichud restrictions as a single woman (panuyah), and these restrictions can only be lifted through either chuppah or the blessing. The Gemara's discussion of Yehuda, where they said the blessing because 'she was designated for him (mis'yachad imah),' supports this view that the blessing itself has halachic efficacy.
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 8a
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.
