No community start suggestion yet.
How can rabbis permit a woman to remarry when she received a get under duress? The Gemara (גמרא) introduces "kol mekadesh al da'as rabbanan" - every man marries contingent on rabbinic approval, allowing them to retroactively annul marriages. Rashi (רש"י) adds that this requires an actual get (even invalid), while Tosafos (תוספות) disagrees.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental Talmudic principle of "kol mekadesh al da'as rabbanan mekadesh" (Kesubos 2b), which grants the rabbis power to retroactively annul marriages. The context involves a woman who received a get (divorce document) under duress (ones), making it invalid by Torah (תורה) law, yet the Gemara (גמרא) permits her to remarry. The Gemara explains this through the principle that every man marries conditionally - subject to rabbinic approval - allowing the rabbis to declare the marriage never existed. Rashi (רש"י) provides a crucial interpretation that diverges from the simple reading of the Gemara. While the Gemara seems to say rabbis can simply annul any marriage they disapprove of, Rashi argues this power only applies when there is an actual get present, even if invalid. According to Rashi, the man's original consent to marry "al da'as rabbanan" only extends to cases where the rabbis validate a questionable get. This limits rabbinic power to situations involving divorce proceedings.
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 2b
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.
