No community start suggestion yet.
When does an almanah who is still a besulah get married? The Mishna says besulos marry Wednesday and almanos Thursday, but creates a contradiction since some almanos are besulos. Rashi (רש"י) disagrees with the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to this inconsistency.
This shiur analyzes the opening Mishna of Masechta Kesubos regarding the wedding days for different types of women. The Mishna states that a besulah (virgin) marries on Wednesday and an almanah (widow) marries on Thursday, with the reason being that Beis Din sits on Monday and Thursday, allowing immediate clarification of any marital issues. However, this creates a fundamental problem: what about an almanah who is still a besulah - a widow who never consummated her first marriage? The Rambam (רמב"ם) resolves this by changing the language of the Mishna from 'almanah' to 'beulah' (non-virgin), making the distinction clear between virgins and non-virgins rather than between single women and widows. The Yerushalmi supports this by stating that an almanah besulah would indeed marry on Wednesday. Rashi (רש"י) takes a different approach, maintaining the Mishna's original language and explaining that only a besulah requires immediate Beis Din review, not an almanah besulah. This leads to a deeper discussion about when one is obligated to clarify a safek sefeika (double doubt). The Chem DaShem questions why Rashi would require clarification of a safek sefeika when the Rama rules that even when clarification is possible, it's not required. The shiur proposes that Rashi distinguishes between cases where there is a reayah (evidence of wrongdoing) versus mere speculation. When a woman was mezanah (promiscuous), this creates a reayah that requires investigation even on a safek sefeika. However, when dealing with an almanah who may have been with her first husband (which is not inherently forbidden), this doesn't constitute a reayah requiring investigation. This distinction explains why the Mishna differentiates between besulah and almanah - only in the former case is there sufficient concern to require immediate Beis Din clarification.
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.
