A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rav Yosef ask 'tali tanya bedilo tanya' when both sources are indeed tanya? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) offer radically different readings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s progression. The core issue emerges: when wedding delays occur, does obligation for mezonos depend on whose sake caused the delay—his or hers?
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of a challenging passage in Kesubos 2a, focusing on the cryptic exchange between Shmuel and Rav Yosef regarding 'tali tanya bedilo tanya' (you rely on a tanya versus a non-tanya). The Gemara (גמרא) initially seems to present an impossible question, leading to the reformulation 'tanya d'mefaresh ta'ama v'tanya d'lo mefaresh ta'ama' (a tanya that explains the reason versus one that doesn't). Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) in understanding this passage. According to Tosafos, the question is straightforward: why does Shmuel go to a different Mishna (on daf nun zayin) to find a nafka mina when our Mishna already provides clear reasoning? Tosafos essentially skips over the 'tali tanya bedilo tanya' formulation as merely a way to clarify what Rav Yosef was really asking.
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
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.
