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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
