A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why must women marry on Wednesday? The Gemara (גמרא) requires this but labels it takanas chachamim while the Rambam (רמב"ם) calls it minhag chachamim. The shiur develops how Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and Rambam disagree fundamentally about whether this creates a new obligation or simply guides optimal timing.
This shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s requirement that women marry on Wednesday, focusing on why Rashi (רש"י) calls it "takanas chachamim" and what that phrase signifies. The discussion begins with the apparent contradiction between the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s terminology - using "takanas chachamim" for the seven-day celebration but only "minhag chachamim" for Wednesday weddings - and Rashi's consistent use of "takanas chachamim." The shiur develops three fundamentally different approaches to this law. According to Tosafos (תוספות), there is a real concern of nesakar adayin (being talked out of separation) specifically for an eishes kohen, who is forbidden to her husband if found to be a zonah. Since the woman has a vested interest in staying married (to avoid losing her kesubah and being thrown out), she will work to convince her husband not to separate from her. The takanas chachamim creates a lo plug - extending the Wednesday requirement to all women even though only eishes kohen actually needs beis din involvement.
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.
