No community start suggestion yet.
Does a woman become married at the beginning or completion of marital relations? The Gemara (גמרא)'s debate between techilat biah kona and sof biah kona raises fundamental questions about the legal definition of biah versus a person's intention. The analysis explores Rashi (רש"י)'s position that this applies only to eirusin (not nisuin), contrasts Tosafot with the Rashba and Rivash on whether prisha (withdrawal) alone creates kiddushin, and examines the puzzling nafka mina regarding a kohen gadol.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 10a, which discusses the fundamental question of whether kiddushin (betrothal) takes effect at the beginning of marital relations (techilat biah kona) or only at the completion (sof biah kona). The discussion centers on understanding what exactly the Gemara's question is asking and what its practical ramifications are. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the Gemara's question only applies to eirusin (betrothal), not to nisuin (marriage). Rashi distinguishes between kiddushin and nisuin, suggesting that while the debate exists regarding eirusin, nisuin is acquired from the beginning. This raises important questions about whether one can create nisuin before eirusin, which the Ritva and Mishneh Melech discuss. The Mishneh Melech suggests that in certain cases, particularly with a cheresh (deaf-mute), one might be able to create chupah before kiddushin.
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.
