No community start suggestion yet.
Why must brachos be made at a wedding ceremony? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s position that birkas chasanim removes the issur of kala beloy bracha, creating tensions with whether this refers to yichud or biah prohibitions. The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulations about brachos, chupa, and nesuin reveal fundamental questions about what actually creates the marriage bond.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 7b, focusing on the nature and function of birkas chasanim (wedding blessings) and their relationship to the marriage process. The discussion centers on several fundamental questions about Jewish marriage law and the mechanics of nisuin. The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s position that the wedding brachos are necessary to remove the issur (prohibition) of "kala beloy bracha" - being with one's bride without having made the proper blessings. According to Rashi, this issur remains even after erusin (betrothal), and only through the combination of chupa and brachos is this prohibition lifted. However, this creates several difficulties in understanding Rashi's approach.
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.
