No community start suggestion yet.
What is the halachic significance of badeken, and when does it occur in the wedding process? The Mordechai holds that badeken itself constitutes a form of chuppah, creating a machlokes with other Rishonim about the timing of mourning laws during sheva berachos. This analysis suggests badeken represents the bride's transfer from her father's reshus before kiddushin—explaining both the emotional weight of the moment and resolving difficult Rishonim about chuppah before kiddushin.
This shiur examines a fascinating halachic dispute regarding the timing of mourning during wedding celebrations, focusing on the significance of badeken (veiling ceremony) in Jewish wedding law. The foundational halacha (הלכה) establishes that if the father of the groom dies before the chuppah, the wedding proceeds first, followed by mourning. However, if other relatives die, mourning typically precedes the wedding celebrations. The Taz brings down a crucial shaila: what happens if a relative dies after the badeken but before the actual chuppah? According to the Mordechai, badeken itself constitutes a form of chuppah, meaning that once it occurs, the wedding has begun, and therefore sheva berachos would continue even if relatives die afterward. The Drisha agrees with this position. However, the Taz disputes this, arguing that badeken cannot be considered chuppah because the groom can still leave after badeken if financial arrangements aren't met—something that frequently occurred.
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!
Kesubos 4b-5b
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.
