A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the Mishna's requirement to go to Beis Din mean a couple is forbidden to live together until they receive clarification? Rashi (רש"י) holds they remain permitted to live together while fulfilling the obligation to seek verification. This creates a chiddush that efshar levarer here means a positive duty to clarify, not a prohibition until clarification.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the Mishna's requirement that those who find pesach (פסח) pasuach must go to Beis Din. The core question is whether this creates an issur on the couple until they receive clarification, or whether they remain permitted to live together while fulfilling an obligation to seek verification. Rashi maintains that the couple is mutar to live together immediately, and the Mishna is establishing a chiyuv birur (obligation to clarify) rather than an issur. This understanding emerges from the practical consideration that being mevarer could take months or years - the Mishna cannot mean they are forbidden to live together for such an extended period without specifying a time limit. According to Rashi, efshar levarer here means a positive obligation to make the effort to clarify, but until clarification comes, the couple relies on their current heter.
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.
