No community start suggestion yet.
Why do the brachos work in Yehuda if the couple can't live together until the second chuppah? Rashi (רש"י) holds chuppas erusin with brachos permits cohabitation immediately. Tosafot argues the brachos only apply to non-chuppah relations, creating fundamental disagreements about when sheva brachos are required.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and the principle of 'kala b'lo bracha asura l'ba'ala k'niddah' (a bride without blessings is forbidden to her husband like a niddah). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses the custom in Yehuda where couples made birchas erusin (engagement blessings) but then required a second chuppah later. Rashi's position is that in Yehuda, they performed a complete chuppas erusin with yichud in the father's house accompanied by sheva brachos. This chuppah, though not the final chuppas nisuin, was sufficient to permit the couple to live together immediately. According to Rashi, there are two types of chuppah: chuppas erusin (which permits cohabitation through yichud and brachos) and chuppas nisuin (which creates the full kinyan of bringing her into his house). The principle of kala b'lo bracha means that both chuppah and bracha are required - without both elements, relations remain forbidden.
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.
