No community start suggestion yet.
Does biah create nisuin or only erusin? The shiur develops that erusin is a kinyan of ownership (like karka), while chuppah is a kinyan of possession (like metaltlin). Whether biah can create full nisuin depends on whether the act of biah includes both ownership and possession simultaneously, or only declares ownership over the ishas without actual possession.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the Gemara (גמרא): when a man is mekadesh a woman through biah, does this create a din of nisuin or only erusin? The Gemara's discussion presents a difficulty—if biah creates nisuin, why doesn't the Gemara simply state that she is arusa and can live with her? Instead, the Gemara lists specific aspects (nafka mina), suggesting a more complex reality. The Kesef Mishneh holds that biah creates nisuin and the woman is permitted to live with her husband. The Maggid Mishneh disagrees, holding that even if biah creates nisuin, she is still prohibited from living with her husband until there is a separate chuppah. The shiur seeks to understand what underlies this machlokes and what exactly the Gemara's question is.
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.
