No community start suggestion yet.
What makes a woman permitted to her husband after marriage? The Gemara (גמרא)'s statement that blessings are required reveals fundamental disagreements between Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rambam (רמב"ם) about whether chuppah, berachos, or both create the heter for living together.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya on Kesubos 7b regarding the requirement of birchas chasanim (wedding blessings) and its relationship to chuppah. The Gemara (גמרא) states that in Yehuda, they would recite birchas chasanim even at the time of erusin, raising fundamental questions about what permits a couple to live together after marriage. Rashi (רש"י)'s position creates significant difficulties in understanding the text. He explains that without berachos, the woman remains forbidden due to the prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman. However, his commentary seems internally contradictory - sometimes indicating that only berachos are needed, other times requiring both chuppah and berachos. The shiur demonstrates how Rashi's explanations appear to conflict with the straightforward reading of the Gemara.
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.
