No community start suggestion yet.
When does kinyan through biya take effect — at the beginning (chillas biya) or completion (sof biya)? The Rif holds that even chillas biya only works retroactively upon completion of the entire maaseh biya; if he separates midway, no kinyan occurs. The Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos discussing harah kona refers to nisuin, not kiddushin, resolving apparent contradictions with the principle kol haboil daito al gemar biya.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of Kiddushin 10a, focusing on the fundamental machlokes regarding when kinyan through biya (marital relations) takes effect. The central sugya asks whether chillas biya (the beginning of relations) or sof biya (completion) creates the kinyan. Rabbi Zweig addresses multiple apparent contradictions in the Talmudic sources. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin states kol haboil daito al gemar biya (one who has relations intends for completion), suggesting only sof biya is koneh. Yet the Gemara in Yevamos indicates that harah (initial contact) is koneh. Various Rishonim offer different resolutions.
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.
