No community start suggestion yet.
Can chupa create kiddushin? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that only chupa performed against a ketana's will—where the father gives her over—counts as a true kinyan. Unlike the yichud understanding of chupa, Rashi sees the ba'al korcha case as proof that chupa is a ma'aseh kinyan, not just a relationship designation.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 3a-3b, focusing on Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding of chupa as a form of kiddushin according to Rav Huna. The central question addressed is how chupa can be learned out from the gezeirah shava of kicha kicha from a field, and what type of chupa qualifies as a valid kinyan. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi's enigmatic comment on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of chupa: "shemasru lo avi'el l'chupa leshen kidushin u'ikdeshes bekach" (that her father gives her over to chupa for the purpose of kiddushin). The shiur questions why Rashi specifically mentions the father giving over his daughter, when the Gemara in Heilman seems to make no such distinction. Through careful analysis of the sugya, it becomes clear that Rashi is reading the entire discussion through a particular lens.
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 3a-3b
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.
