No community start suggestion yet.
The Gemara (גמרא) asks whether kiddushin through biah takes effect at the beginning (techilas biah) or completion (sof biah) of the act. The shiur shows this question is not about the minimum act required, but whether the kinyan works retroactively from the start once completed. Understanding this resolves apparent contradictions between our sugya and Yevamos regarding haraah.
This shiur analyzes the complex sugya in Kiddushin 10a discussing whether kiddushin through biah is established at techilas biah (the beginning of the act) or sof biah (its completion). Rabbi Zweig identifies several fundamental difficulties with the Gemara (גמרא)'s structure: the lack of clear tzadim (reasoning) for either position, the absence of any apparent shailah given that haraah is considered biah throughout Torah (תורה), and why Tosafos (תוספות) only raises his question on the Gemara's maskana rather than at the outset. The shiur presents a close reading of Rashi (רש"י) that raises significant challenges. Rashi limits the discussion to erusin, and the language "shelo leshem kiddushin" appears puzzling when discussing a kohen gadol who cannot marry a be'ulah. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that Rashi in Yevamos explicitly holds that haraah creates kiddushin, making the apparent contradiction more acute.
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.
