A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must a betula marry on Wednesday according to the Mishna? Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot disagree fundamentally about whether finding pesach (פסח) pasuach creates an actual prohibition or merely an obligation to clarify. The shiur explores how this affects the din of shema yiskarah da'ato and the practical difference between issur and chiyuv levarer.
The shiur analyzes Kesubos 2a regarding the Mishna's requirement that a betula marry on Wednesday. Rabbi Zweig examines the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot concerning the nature of the obligation when pesach (פסח) pasuach is discovered. Tosafot learns that finding pesach pasuach creates an actual issur - the woman becomes forbidden until the matter is clarified through Beis Din. According to this view, the Wednesday marriage timing ensures that if there's a problem discovered, Beis Din will be available Thursday morning. Tosafot holds this applies specifically to cases where there's actual issur, making it a 'lo plug' (uniform application) from the primary cases.
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.
