A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can rabbinic authorities annul a Torah (תורה)-level marriage retroactively? The Gemara (גמרא)'s statement "kol mekadesh adaata derabanan mekadesh" raises the question of whether annulment works retroactively or prospectively. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the dispute between geonim and Rashi (רש"י) regarding divrei sofer, the nature of kedushin kesef versus shtar, and the limits of rabbinic power over Torah law.
This shiur addresses Gittin 33a and examines fundamental questions about rabbinic authority to annul marriages and the mechanisms by which kedushin takes effect. The primary focus is the principle of "afkinhu rabbanan lekiddushin minei" (the Sages annulled the marriage) and the related concept of "kol mekadesh adaata derabanan mekadesh" (anyone who betroths does so according to rabbinic stipulation). Rabbi Zweig presents a dispute between the geonim and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the concept of divrei sofer. According to the geonim, when kedushin kesef is called "divrei sofer," this means it is only rabbinic in nature, not Torah (תורה) law. Rashi strongly objects to this interpretation, arguing that one cannot kill a na'arah me'orasah (betrothed maiden) based on kedushin that is merely rabbinic. The shiur explores Rashi's fundamental objection: how can something that appears explicitly in the Torah's written text be classified as merely rabbinic?
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!
Gittin 33a
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.
