No community start suggestion yet.
What happens halachically when a niddah enters chuppah? The shiur develops the machlokes between the Ran (who says bedieved it's good) and the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s apparent position. The analysis reveals that the Rambam may hold chuppah creates two separate dinim - ishto lechol davar and heter bia - which can split apart in cases of chuppas niddah.
This shiur delves into a fundamental machlokes between the Ran and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding chuppas niddah (a niddah entering the marriage canopy). The Ran states that while it is forbidden lechatchilah to perform chuppah with a niddah, bedieved (after the fact) it is effective and creates a valid marriage. The Beis Shmuel raises a strong question on the Rambam's position: if the Rambam holds that chuppas niddah is ineffective even bedieved, then how can the Gemara (גמרא) have a question about whether there is a chiyuv mezonos (obligation of support) in such a case? Rabbi Zweig develops a novel understanding of the Rambam that resolves this difficulty. According to this reading, the Rambam holds that chuppah creates two distinct halachic statuses: (1) ishto lechol davar (she becomes his wife in all respects) and (2) heter bia (permission for marital relations). When a niddah enters chuppah, the first din takes effect - she becomes his wife regarding inheritance, tumah, and financial obligations like mezonos - but the second din of heter bia does not. This explains why the Gemara can question the chiyuv mezonos even according to the Rambam. The shiur further explores the Rambam's requirements for chuppah, arguing that the Rambam requires both hachnasat reshus (bringing into one's domain) and yichud (seclusion), but these requirements may apply differently to the two dinim created by chuppah. The analysis addresses several kashas from other sugyos, including the Gemara's discussion of yesh chuppah lebetulot and cases of nichnas lechuppah velo nivara (entered chuppah but did not consummate). Rabbi Zweig suggests that according to this understanding, the Rambam's position becomes internally consistent and resolves the apparent contradictions in his various halachos regarding marriage.
Kesubos 2a
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.
