A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
If duress prevents a husband from returning by the date specified in a conditional get, does the divorce still take effect? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s principle that duress invalidates conditional divorces by making it as if the preventing event never occurred, rather than merely excusing non-performance.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 2a regarding the principle of ein oines bigitin (there is no duress in divorces). The discussion centers on a case where a husband gives his wife a conditional get, stating that if he doesn't return by a certain date, she will be divorced. When duress prevents his return, the question arises whether the divorce takes effect. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation is examined in detail. He explains that midiraysa (from Torah (תורה) law), duress does invalidate such conditional divorces, deriving this principle from the case of a na'arah me'orasah (betrothed maiden) who cannot be punished if violated under duress. The shiur explores Rashi's language of 'tainas oines' (claim of duress) and questions why he uses this terminology rather than simply stating that duress exempts.
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.
