No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a woman a be'ulah (one who has had relations)? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether bi'ah shelo k'darkah creates the status of be'ulah. Rabbi Zweig develops the insight that be'ulah is not defined by the physical act alone but by a relationship dynamic—specifically, whether the man acted toward her as a husband (ba'al).
This shiur analyzes Kiddushin 9b-10a, focusing on a fundamental question: what constitutes the status of be'ulah? The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether bi'ah shelo k'darkah (unnatural relations) creates the halachic status of be'ulah, with significant implications for na'arah me'orasah (betrothed maiden), kenas (fine for violation), and capital punishment. Rabbi Zweig presents a complex sugya examining the dispute between Rebbe and the Chachamim regarding whether subsequent acts of bi'ah after the initial one make a woman a be'ulah for purposes of execution. The Gemara asks how Rebbe knows that an amah ivriyah (Hebrew maidservant) cannot be acquired through bi'ah, since Rebbe uses the pasuk "u'vo eilehah" for the kinyan of kiddushin itself.
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 9b-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.
