No community start suggestion yet.
Can chuppah create kiddushin independently, or does it only complete the kinyan begun by kesef? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s kal v'chomer and examines Rashi (רש"י)'s position that all three kinyanim work ba'al korchah in ishus versus Tosfos' reading. A Ramban (רמב"ן) regarding a Kohen Gadol's kiddushin forces a fundamental reexamination of whether chuppah functions independently or only as gomeres kesef.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kiddushin 5a-b exploring the nature of chuppah as a kinyan for kiddushin. The central question is whether chuppah can create kiddushin on its own or whether it only completes (gomeres) the kinyan begun by kesef. The Gemara (גמרא) attempts a kal v'chomer: if kesef, which cannot effect nisuin, can create erusin, then chuppah, which can create nisuin, should certainly be able to create erusin. The Gemara raises a pircha: perhaps the three kinyanim (kesef, shtar, and biah) that work ba'al korchah cannot be used to learn out chuppah, which does not work ba'al korchah. Rav Huna responds that only a chumra found in ishus itself would invalidate the kal v'chomer, and ba'al korchah is not specific to ishus.
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 5a-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.
