No community start suggestion yet.
Why don't kiddushei kesef get retroactively cancelled when forced by circumstances? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s revolutionary approach that kesef creates only civil acquisition while spiritual ishus comes later. This explains why ein onnes b'gittin produces a valid divorce rather than retroactive cancellation.
This shiur analyzes the complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 3a regarding the principle of "kol mekadesh al daas d'rabbanan mekadesh" and its application to different forms of kiddushin. The Gemara presents a fundamental shakla v'tarya about whether Chachamim can retroactively uproot marriages, particularly distinguishing between kiddushei kesef and kiddushei bi'ah. Rashi (רש"י) and the early authorities learned that kiddushei kesef is only d'rabbanan, leading to serious difficulties. If the marriage was never valid mid'oraisa, how can there be capital punishment for adultery, and why would she need to bring a korban for inadvertent relations? The Rashbam suggests the marriage is uprooted retroactively (nekul l'mafrei'a), but this creates impossible halachic consequences - a kohen could marry her, and the husband could marry her sister.
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 3a
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.
