A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does ones k'man d'ovid dami work in conditional gittin and kiddushin? The Rosh brings clear evidence from the Mishna that it doesn't create fictional fulfillment when the condition was never met. Rather, it extends deadlines when the action was done late due to force.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental disagreement between the Rosh and Ran regarding the principle of ones k'man d'ovid dami (a person under duress is considered as if he acted) in conditional gittin and kiddushin. The Rosh provides a clear logical framework: if someone says "im lo basi yehi get" (if I don't come, it should be a get), ones can prevent this from being considered fulfillment of the condition. However, if he says "im basi" (if I come), ones cannot create fictional coming - he simply didn't come. The Ran cites a Yerushalmi disagreement between Rav Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding someone who says "harei at mekudeshes li" on condition that he makes nisuin within six months, but becomes sick. The Ran surprisingly argues that by kiddushin, even Rav Yochanan agrees ones k'man d'ovid dami, while by gittin he doesn't. The Ran's reasoning distinguishes unilateral actions (get) from bilateral agreements (kiddushin).
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.
