No community start suggestion yet.
When a couple consummates their relationship through biah (intimacy), does this create erusin (betrothal) or nisuin (full marriage)? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s fundamental question, exploring whether biah can accomplish both stages simultaneously or sequentially, and examines Rashi (רש"י)'s position that even when biah creates nisuin, certain restrictions remain—suggesting she is only "kinisuin" (like nisuin) rather than fully married.
This shiur examines a fundamental question in Kiddushin 10a-b regarding whether biah (marital intimacy) creates erusin (betrothal) or nisuin (full marriage). The Gemara (גמרא)'s question "biah nisuin oisa o erusin oisa" appears straightforward, but Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary reveals significant complexity. Rashi states that the question is whether biah creates "kinisuin" (like nisuin) or merely erusin, suggesting that even according to the view that biah creates nisuin, it does not create a complete marriage status. The shiur identifies a fundamental difficulty: if biah creates nisuin, why would the Gemara need to articulate any nafka mina (practical difference)? The differences between an arusah (betrothed woman) and nesuah (married woman) are well-known throughout Shas. Rashi resolves this by explaining that the Gemara is discussing whether biah creates kinisuin for specific halachic consequences (inheritance, ritual purity, annulment of vows) but not necessarily for all aspects of nisuin. Most significantly, according to Rashi, even if biah creates nisuin status for these purposes, there may still be an issur (prohibition) for the couple to live together until proper chuppah is performed.
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-b
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.
