A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a married woman become obligated in honoring parents after divorce when the pasuk exempted her? The shiur analyzes three approaches—Ran, Ritva, and Rambam (רמב"ם)—turning on whether kavod without personal service qualifies as kibbud av or merely ahavta l'reacha kamocha, and whether the exemption is a function of reshus (authority-domain) or practical inability.
The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin discusses the obligation of honoring parents through kavod (honor) and mora (awe/fear). The Gemara establishes that mora includes not contradicting a parent, not sitting in their place, and not joining another to rule against them, while kavod includes providing food, drink, and clothing. The pasuk uses the plural "tira'u," indicating both sons and daughters are obligated, but also states "ish" (a man), which the Gemara interprets to mean a man has the wherewithal to fulfill these obligations while a married woman does not, as she is under the authority of her husband. However, if she is divorced, she returns to being obligated. The Ran's approach is that the fact that a divorced woman becomes obligated proves she was always obligated even when married—she was merely in a state of ones (compulsion) that prevented fulfillment. The Ritva disagrees fundamentally, arguing that when married she was truly exempt, and only the pasuk of "tira'u" creates a new obligation upon divorce. This creates a fundamental question: what exactly was her status when married?
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!
Kiddushin 30b-31a
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.
