A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can the Chachamim dissolve a marriage created through kidushei kesef when they lack authority over Torah (תורה)-level marriage bonds? The shiur develops a novel approach distinguishing monetary ownership rights from the issur relationship itself. While the Rabbanan can nullify property ownership in a wife, the issur dimension requires their prospective prohibition making cohabitation forbidden going forward.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion regarding the Chachamim's authority to dissolve marriages created through kidushei kesef (monetary betrothal). The central question revolves around how the Rabbanan can effectively nullify a marriage when they seemingly lack the power to uproot Torah (תורה)-level matrimonial bonds. Rabbi Zweig examines multiple Rishonic approaches, beginning with Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that kidushei kesef works al menas she-yirtzu Rabbanan (conditional on Rabbinic approval), allowing retroactive nullification. However, this approach faces significant difficulties, including how to explain the Gemara's discussion of na'ar me'urasah and the gezeirah shavah that equates kidushei kesef to Torah law.
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 3a
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.
