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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
