A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does an almanah (widow) receive a ketubah if its purpose is to deter divorce? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that ketubah is fundamentally a Torah (תורה)-level obligation to provide permanent financial responsibility, not merely a rabbinic enactment to prevent easy divorce. For divorce, the rabbis added the requirement; for widows and ma'anis victims, the biblical obligation remains.
This shiur analyzes the fundamental nature of ketubah, focusing on a profound disagreement between the Tosafot and the Rambam (רמב"ם). The central question is whether ketubah is primarily a biblical (de'oraisa) obligation or a rabbinic (derabbanan) enactment, and what its core purpose is. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kiddushin 2a discusses the requirement of ketubah in the context of marriage. The principle emerges that marriage requires not just kiddushin (betrothal) but also ketubah—a permanent financial responsibility. The Rambam in Hilchot Ishut establishes that ketubah is fundamentally a biblical obligation (din de'oraisa), rooted in the Torah (תורה)'s requirement for a husband to provide ongoing financial support to his wife and to leave assets for her after his death. This is reflected in the principle "ein isha nikneshet ela b'ketubah u'kiddushin"—a woman enters marriage only through ketubah and kiddushin.
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 2a
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.
