A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Rambam (רמב"ם) define chuppah as yichud haroy lebiya when this creates multiple contradictions? The shiur develops that the Rambam recognizes two distinct types of chuppah - kinyan (through biya after kiddushin) and relationship (through yichud). This resolves the Ran's kashas while explaining chuppas nidah and the practical halachos of mezones.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental debate about the nature of chuppah, focusing on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that chuppah is yichud haroy lebiya and the Ran's strong objections. The Ran raises several kashas: How can there be chuppah without yichud when the Gemara (גמרא) discusses cases where a woman enters chuppah but there's no yichud? How does this work for psulos like an almana to a kohen gadol where yichud haroy lebiya is impossible? What about cases like moser av leshluchei aba where the woman isn't even with her husband? And how does this apply on Yom Kippur when there's no yichud possible? Rabbi Zweig develops an innovative approach to resolve these difficulties. The Rambam distinguishes between two entirely different types of chuppah. One type is a kinyan - specifically biya after kiddushin, which the Rambam explicitly calls a kinyan that makes her "ishto lechol davar." The second type is yichud, which is not a kinyan at all but rather the creation of a relationship.
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.
