No community start suggestion yet.
Does the principle of ones (compulsion) apply to gittin (divorce)? The shiur analyzes whether a husband can claim ones to invalidate a get, exploring the difference between claiming ones versus circumstances creating ones. The key insight involves distinguishing between conditional gets where ones affects the original giving versus revocation of an already-given get.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 2a-b dealing with the principle of "ein ones b'gittin" - whether compulsion (ones) can invalidate a get (divorce document). The discussion centers on cases where a husband gives a conditional get before departing on a journey, specifying it should take effect if he doesn't return within a certain timeframe, but then dies or is prevented from returning due to circumstances beyond his control. Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental question of what constitutes ones in the context of gittin. The Gemara presents different scenarios: one where the husband says the get should take effect after a certain period, and another where he says it should take effect immediately but gives himself the right to revoke it if he returns. The shiur examines why these cases might have different halachic outcomes despite seemingly similar circumstances.
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 2a-b
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.
