No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosafos (תוספות) say one needs berachah for biyah rather than yichud? The shiur analyzes three difficulties in Tosafos and four kashas on Rashi (רש"י)'s position that kala beloy berachah falls under the issur of pnuyah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 7b, focusing on the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the nature of the prohibition of kala beloy berachah (a bride without blessings). The discussion centers on whether the required berachah is needed to permit yichud (seclusion) or biyah (marital relations). The shiur presents three major difficulties with Tosafos's position. First, if one performs biyah with shem chuppah (intent for chuppah), why would that eliminate the need for berachos when the regular din requires both chuppah and berachah? Second, if chuppah requires edim (witnesses) and one acts with shem chuppah but without edim, this would still constitute kala beloy berachah, making the distinction meaningless. Third, Tosafos appears to disagree fundamentally with Rashi about whether the core prohibition concerns yichud or biyah.
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.
