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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
