No community start suggestion yet.
Why must one ask mechilah three times, and what is the nature of this requirement? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between mechilah as a favor versus mechilah as rectification of the original wrong. This framework resolves the Maharsha's question and explains why Yosef's brothers' approach through messengers was insufficient.
The shiur examines two fundamental issues from Kesubos 9a, beginning with a detailed analysis of the requirement to ask mechilah (forgiveness) three times. Rabbi Zweig addresses the Maharsha's pointed question: if three times is sufficient, why wouldn't ten times also suffice if the person refuses to grant forgiveness after three attempts? The core insight emerges through a careful reading of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position on bakashas mechilah (requesting forgiveness). Rabbi Zweig identifies two possible understandings of this requirement: either asking mechilah is requesting a favor from the wronged party to discharge their right over you, or it constitutes the actual repair of the original wrong through the act of humbling oneself. The Rambam's ruling that after three refusals the refusing party becomes the sinner proves that the second understanding is correct - the asking itself fixes the personal put-down that was created by the original wrong.
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 9a
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.
