No community start suggestion yet.
What constitutes onus (duress) when conditions in gittin or kiddushin are not fulfilled? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two types of onus: where you simply cannot perform vs. where you want to perform but cannot. This analysis explains apparent contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם) and reconciles different positions.
This shiur presents an in-depth analysis of the concept of onus (duress/circumstances beyond one's control) in the context of conditional gittin and kiddushin. The discussion begins with a question from the Chasam Sofer regarding a case in the Ittur where Talmidei Chachamim debated whether there is onus in kiddushin, and why this would create any practical problem for the rabbis. Rashi (רש"י)'s approach is examined in detail, particularly his statement that by gittin one must be able to claim 'onus hayisi' (I was under duress). The shiur analyzes what Rashi means by 'tainas onus' - the requirement to assert one's duress - and how this differs from simply being unable to perform an action. According to Rashi's reading, it's not sufficient to merely demonstrate that circumstances prevented performance; one must actively claim and substantiate the onus.
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.
