No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a husband who dies before returning need to have made a formal claim of oines to validate his conditional get? Rashi (רש"י) argues that gittin aren't about ability but about intent - you must demonstrate you want the get invalidated. This creates a fundamental dispute with the Baalei Tosafos (תוספות) about whether ones automatically cancels the get or requires explicit declaration.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2b dealing with the halacha (הלכה) of "ein ones begitin" (there is no exemption of oines by gittin) according to Rashi (רש"י)'s understanding, contrasted with the position of the Aguda and other Rishonim. The discussion centers on cases where a husband gives a conditional get stating it will take effect if he doesn't return within twelve months, and then dies during that period. Rabbi Zweig begins by outlining several difficulties in Rashi's interpretation: the apparent contradiction between the Gemara (גמרא)'s assumption that oines exists in gittin versus the conclusion that ein ones begitin; Rashi's seeming inconsistency between the beginning and end of the sugya regarding whether a woman becomes forbidden to kohanim; and questions about why the Gemara didn't immediately apply ein ones begitin.
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.
