No community start suggestion yet.
When a man acquires a wife through biah (intimate relations), does that act create erusin (betrothal) or nisuin (marriage)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s question assumes these are mutually exclusive outcomes. The shiur explores why one kinyan can't accomplish both stages simultaneously, analyzing the Ran's approach and the Rivavah's position on whether tchilus biah (beginning) or gemar biah (completion) effects the kinyan.
This shiur delivers a detailed analysis of Kiddushin 10a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s inquiry whether biah (intimate relations) creates erusin (betrothal) only, or whether it can create nisuin (full marriage). The fundamental question is: "Biah erusin osah, o biah nisuin osah?"—does biah make erusin, or does it make nisuin? The Gemara's question appears paradoxical. We know both erusin and nisuin are legitimate Torah (תורה) stages; we know biah can effect kiddushin. Yet the Gemara asks which one it accomplishes, as though they are mutually exclusive. Why can't one act of biah create both erusin and nisuin? The shiur examines multiple approaches to this difficulty, including the possibility that biah creates a hybrid status—nisuin without the ability to live together, or erusin with that ability—something qualitatively different from ordinary erusin or nisuin.
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.
