A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why predate a get to save a woman from execution? The Gemara (גמרא) offers two approaches: avoiding the obligation of bi'ur ra mei'kirbecha versus preventing her from being mezanah knowing her husband will cover for her. A second discussion examines when a husband must provide mezuzah when marriage is delayed.
The shiur begins with an analysis of a fundamental question in Kesubos 2a regarding why one would predate a get to save a woman who is liable for execution. The Gemara (גמרא) presents the case where a woman has committed adultery and faces capital punishment, but her husband can save her life by predating their divorce document. Two approaches emerge to explain the concern about this practice. The first approach suggests the problem is that predating the get would violate the obligation of bi'ur ra mei'kirbecha - the requirement to eliminate evil from our midst. When someone is liable for capital punishment, there exists a positive obligation to ensure they face justice, similar to the case in Chullin regarding birds that must be brought to beis din rather than sent away through shiluach hakan. By predating the get, the husband would be actively preventing the fulfillment of this Torah (תורה) obligation.
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 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.
