A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can rabbis nullify kiddushin through 'afkinu rabbanan kiddushin'? The shiur examines the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י)'s implicit condition approach versus Tosafos (תוספות)'s 'hefker beis din hefker' mechanism. This debate shapes contemporary psak on whether Reform marriages create halachic marriage status.
This shiur provides an in-depth examination of a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos that discusses the rabbinical authority to annul marriages through the principle of 'afkinu rabbanan kiddushin' (the rabbis nullify the kiddushin). The discussion centers on understanding how the Gemara's statement 'kol mekadesh al daas rabbanan mekadesh v'afkinu rabbanan l'kiddushin minei' actually functions. Rabbi Zweig explores two primary interpretations of this mechanism. The first approach, suggested by Rashi (רש"י), understands this as an implicit condition (tanai) in every kiddushin - that the marriage is valid only as long as the rabbis approve of it. When they disapprove, the condition fails and the kiddushin never existed. The second approach, developed by Tosafos (תוספות), relies on the principle of 'hefker beis din hefker' - the rabbinic court's power to declare property ownerless, which extends to nullifying the monetary aspect of kiddushin.
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 92b
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.
