A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can the Rambam (רמב"ם) hold that chuppah is yichud when there's chuppah for psulos who can't have yichud? The shiur develops a novel reading that chuppah creates two distinct elements: a "forever after" commitment and immediate heter - with a niddah having only the first, explaining why she's "karusan dai" until becoming muteret.
The shiur addresses fundamental contradictions in understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s position that chuppah is yichud. The Ran asks: if the Rambam holds chuppah is yichud, how can there be chuppah for psulos (like an almanah to a Kohen Gadol) where yichud is forbidden? The Ran answers that b'diavad it's good, while according to the Rambam, b'diavad it's no good. Rabbi Zweig proposes a revolutionary understanding of the Rambam's shita. The Rambam defines chuppah as requiring two elements: hachnasas reshus (bringing her into his domain) and yichud with "v'yafrish enah lo" - designating her exclusively for him. This creates what the shiur terms a "forever after" commitment, establishing ongoing rights of intimacy.
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 2b
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.
