No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) require yichud for chuppah when the Gemara (גמרא) discusses chuppah without yichud (moser av l'shluchei ha'baal)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two types of chuppah: kinyan (acquisition) and relationship (ishto k'gufo). The Rambam's regular chuppah creates ishto gemurah through relationship, while chuppah without yichud creates only kinyan-based marriage.
The shiur addresses two fundamental questions about the laws of chuppah and nissuin. The first kasha comes from the Nesivos: the Rambam (רמב"ם) requires yichud for chuppah, yet the Gemara (גמרא) discusses cases of moser av l'shluchei ha'baal (the father delivering the bride to the groom's agents) where there is chuppah without yichud, since she remains arusah and cannot seclude herself with the husband's agents. The second kasha involves an apparent contradiction in the Ran's approach. In our sugya, the Ran says that even according to the Rambam, chuppah without a kesubah works bediavad since violating this requirement is only an issur derabbanan. However, in Kiddushin, the Ran explains that biah can serve as chuppah after erusin specifically because there's no issur when done l'shem nissuin - not because issur derabbanan works bediavad.
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.
