No community start suggestion yet.
Why must women marry on Wednesday and appear in court on Thursday? The Gemara (גמרא) presents three fundamentally different approaches: Rashi (רש"י) focuses on preventing sin through spousal separation, Tosafot emphasizes expertise in testimony, while the Rambam (רמב"ם) introduces a novel understanding centered on establishing lineage status rather than marital prohibitions.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of the opening Mishna in Kesubos regarding the requirement for women to marry on specific days of the week, with particular focus on the underlying rationales presented by major Rishonim. The discussion centers on a fundamental question: why does the Mishna require all women to appear before Beis Din immediately after marriage, and what does this reveal about the nature of halachic testimony and marital law? The shiur begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, which suggests that the court appearance is necessitated by concerns about potential prohibitions (issur) that might apply to the woman. According to this view, there are cases where a woman might become forbidden to her husband, and the court must investigate to prevent violation of these prohibitions. However, this approach encounters significant difficulties, particularly regarding the concept of lo plug (rabbinic uniformity) - how can such a rare circumstance (affecting primarily wives of kohanim in very specific situations) justify a universal requirement affecting all women?
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 2a
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.
