No community start suggestion yet.
Does biah (marital relations) effect kiddushin at its beginning (techilas biah) or its completion (sof biah)? The shiur works through multiple approaches in Tosafos (תוספות)—whether it depends on intent, differs between erusin and nisuin, or varies across different halachic contexts. The Ran's position that yibum differs from standard kiddushin leads to complex questions about the relationship between intention and kinyan.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental question in Kiddushin 10a regarding when biah (marital relations) effects the kinyan of kiddushin: at the beginning (techilas biah) or at the completion (sof biah). The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion creates an apparent contradiction with the sugya in Yevamos, which seems to indicate that techilas biah is sufficient for kinyan by a yevamah. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining practical nafka minas (practical differences) between the two positions. He questions the Shulchan Aruch's case where in the middle of biah she accepts kiddushin from someone else, suggesting a more likely scenario: if the man dies during biah, does the woman need chalitzah? If techilas biah is koneh, she would be considered his wife and need chalitzah; if sof biah is required, she remains a penuyah.
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.
