No community start suggestion yet.
Does biah create only erusin, or can it create nisuin as well? The shiur analyzes whether biah is a single act of declaring ownership (like karka) or two simultaneous acts—ownership and possession—distinguishing between the Gaon's approach (one-dimensional) and the Ran's approach (two-dimensional), with major halachic implications for whether the woman is permitted to her husband.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 10a, focusing on the fundamental question of whether biah (marital relations) creates only erusin (betrothal) or can also create nisuin (full marriage). The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion raises the question: when biah occurs, does it accomplish only erusin, or does it accomplish nisuin as well? The shiur demonstrates that this cannot be a simple definitional question, since we already know what erusin and nisuin are; rather, the Gemara must be exploring something deeper about the nature of kinyan biah. The shiur identifies two fundamentally different approaches to understanding this sugya. The Gaon holds that biah nisuin osa means that biah is a single act of declaring ownership, but the quality of that ownership extends to the ishus (marital relationship) itself, not just the woman as an object. This is similar to kinyan karka, where the kinyan shows ownership rather than taking possession. According to this view, biah does not create actual possession (hachnasas l'rishus); it merely declares ownership over a broader domain. Consequently, even if we hold biah nisuin osa, the woman remains forbidden to her husband until she is actually brought into his domain through chuppah.
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.
