A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) say "lo yichnus" when the Gemara (גמרא) says "lo yivo"? The shiur develops the Rambam's shita that chuppah requires yichud haroy lebir, creating a fundamental disagreement with Tosafos (תוספות) about whether marriage can occur when beilah is forbidden on Shabbos (שבת).
The shiur addresses a fundamental discrepancy between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and the Gemara (גמרא)'s language regarding marriage on Friday night and Shabbos (שבת). While the Gemara states "lo yivo" (he should not have relations), the Rambam writes "lo yichnus" (he should not marry). Rabbi Zweig explains that according to Tosafos (תוספות), the Gemara permits marriage on these nights because the prohibition against beilah removes the tirda hamitzvah (preoccupation with the mitzvah (מצוה)), thus preventing potential chilul Shabbos. Since there's no tirda, people won't become so engrossed in wedding preparations that they'll forget about Shabbos. However, the Rambam holds that chuppah requires yichud haroy lebir (seclusion fit for relations), and when beilah is forbidden, there can be no valid chuppah. The Rambam interprets the Gemara as explaining why marriage itself is prohibited - not just because of chilul Shabbos concerns, but because the very solution (prohibiting beilah) invalidates the marriage ceremony according to his understanding of chuppah. The shiur then delves into complex analysis of Tosafos regarding psik reisha and whether mekalkel changes the status of davar she'ein miskaven. Rabbi Zweig discusses the distinction between "ein miskaven" and "ein miskaven klal," suggesting that when someone actively doesn't want a consequence to occur (as in mekalkel cases), this creates a different halachic category than merely not thinking about a potential outcome. The discussion includes analysis of whether circumcision on Shabbos involves the melacha of chabura or gozes, and how this affects various girsa questions in the Gemara.
Kesubos 5b
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.
