No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't the Gemara (גמרא) answer the question of 'vlidros onishori' with karka olam instead of beis beheimah? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rabbeinu Tam and the Rivam over when karka olam serves as an exemption - whether it applies to giluy arayos, chillul Hashem (ה׳), or both.
The shiur examines a complex Tosfos on Kesubos 3b dealing with the principle of karka olam (passive participation) and its application to different categories of forbidden acts. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the question 'vlidros onishori' - suggesting that a woman should be forced into degrading situations rather than change the takanas chachamim about wedding timing. Rabbi Zweig analyzes how different Rishonim resolve this difficulty. The core dispute centers on Rabbeinu Tam versus the Rivam regarding when karka olam exempts from the obligation of yeharag v'al ya'avor (martyrdom). According to Rav Kivaiger's reading, Rabbeinu Tam holds that karka olam works for chillul Hashem (ה׳) but not for giluy arayos, while the Rivam holds the opposite - that it clearly applies to giluy arayos but is a chiddush for chillul Hashem.
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 3b
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.
