A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why didn't the chachamim revoke their takana requiring Wednesday weddings when the government decreed that brides would be violated before their husbands? The shiur argues that when a takana doesn't cause the underlying problem but merely provides an opportunity for existing taavah, revoking it won't solve the danger but only removes rabbinic authority over marriage.
The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a takanas chachamim requiring weddings on Wednesday (Yom Revi'i), but notes that lo mitchu bo chachamim - they left the takana in place but didn't stringently enforce it due to sakana. The Gemara explains two possible decrees: either besulah nisus tehareg (virgin brides would be killed) or besulah nisus tibol hegemon tchila (virgin brides would first be violated by the hegemon). The fundamental difficulty Rabbi Zweig addresses is why the chachamim wouldn't simply revoke their takana when it led to such terrible consequences. If they maintained the takana for beautiful weddings or to avoid men having to go to beis din for claims against their wives, how could they allow brides to be violated just to preserve these benefits?
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 3b
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.
