A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can kiddushin take effect at the beginning of biah or only at its completion? The Gemara (גמרא)'s conclusion that "kol ha'boeil daito l'gmar biah" means a person's intent is for the completed act, not retroactively from the start. This principle prevents kiddushin with biah for a kohen gadol and clarifies the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between erusin and nisuin.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental question in Kiddushin 10a: does the act of biah (marital relations) effect kiddushin from its beginning (techilat biah) or only upon its completion (sof biah)? The Gemara (גמרא)'s inquiry centers on whether the kinyan (acquisition) works retroactively from the initial contact or only when the act is complete. Rabbi Zweig examines the major Rishonim's approaches. The Rashba and Rivam hold that it depends on the person's kavanah (intent)—if he intends to be mekadesh at the beginning, techilat biah works; if at the end, sof biah. Rabbeinu Tam argues that the Gemara is addressing whether biah requires techilat hach'nasat ha'atar (initial penetration) or sof hach'nasat ha'atar (complete penetration), attempting to align this Gemara with the principle in Yevamot that "ha'arah konah" (initial contact effects acquisition).
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
