A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the obligation to provide a kesubah begin at erusin or nisuin? The Rambam (רמב"ם) holds it's d'oraisa from nisuin based on 'k'mohar habesulos,' creating a fundamental distinction between the obligation to marry (from kiddushin) and the obligation to pay (from nisuin). This resolves the classic question of why 'misheirastani nenasti' isn't considered a mekach ta'os.
This shiur addresses fundamental questions about the nature and timing of kesubah obligations according to the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position. The central challenge comes from Tosafos (תוספות) Rid and Rabbeinu Chananel who argue that our sugya must hold that kesubah obligations begin from erusin, because otherwise a case of 'misheirastani nenasti' (I was raped after you betrothed me) would constitute a mekach ta'os (mistaken transaction). Since the Rambam rules that kesubah obligations only begin at nisuin, this creates a significant difficulty. Rabbi Zweig develops a novel approach based on the Rambam's understanding that there are two distinct types of kesubah obligations: one d'oraisa and one d'rabbanan. The d'oraisa obligation stems from the pasuk 'k'mohar habesulos' and applies to cases like a mefutah (seduced woman) who must receive kesubah like other besulos. This obligation is designed to create permanence in marriage that extends beyond the husband's lifetime - essentially making marriage more than just a temporary arrangement.
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 12b
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.
