No community start suggestion yet.
What does the principle "ein onus b'gittin" mean? The shiur explores whether onus requires active resistance (yesh taina onus) and develops the distinction between objective inability versus subjective intent. The analysis shows that in conditional gittin, the real issue isn't physical coming but the husband's underlying desire to divorce.
This shiur analyzes the Talmudic principle of "ein onus b'gittin" (there is no coercion in divorce) from Kesubos 2b, focusing on the requirement of "yesh taina onus" (there must be a claim of coercion). The discussion begins with Rashi (רש"י)'s position that onus requires not just objective inability but also subjective resistance - one must actively claim they were coerced and didn't want to perform the act. This is contrasted with cases where someone has no choice but still desires the outcome. The shiur develops a fundamental distinction in understanding conditional gittin. When a husband says "this is a get if I don't come within twelve months," the question arises: is this about the physical act of coming/not coming, or about his underlying intent regarding the divorce? Rabbi Zweig argues that the true issue is the husband's desire - whether he wants to give the get or retract it, with coming/not coming serving merely as evidence of his intent.
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.
