A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) require brachos for chuppah but not consider them essential for permitting relations? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction where brachos are required for chuppah itself (as a din in chuppah), not to permit subsequent relations. This resolves apparent contradictions between Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam regarding when marriage brachos are required.
This advanced shiur analyzes Kesubos 7b and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position in Hilchos Ishus 10:6 regarding the requirement for brachos in marriage. The discussion centers on resolving an apparent contradiction in the Rambam's approach to chuppas erusin and the role of marriage blessings. The shiur begins by examining the Gra's commentary on the Rambam, establishing that the discussion involves a case where there was yichud in her father's house (not his house), making her still an arusah but with some level of kinyan legavi biya (acquisition regarding relations). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to the Rambam, this creates an unprecedented chiddush - the woman remains asur (forbidden) even after this form of chuppah.
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.
