No community start suggestion yet.
If a husband gives a conditional get saying 'if I don't return within twelve months, this is your divorce,' does unavoidable illness or other oines invalidate the condition? The shiur traces the sugya through Rashi (רש"י)'s framework that oines questions whether an act is truly 'his act,' but shows this creates new difficulties about the nature of conditional statements and personal intention in halacha (הלכה).
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2a dealing with the principle of 'ein oines b'gittin' - that circumstances beyond one's control (oines) don't invalidate conditional divorces. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a husband gives his wife a conditional get, stating 'if I don't return within twelve months, this should be your divorce.' The fundamental question is whether oines (unavoidable circumstances like illness) prevents the fulfillment of such conditions. The discussion begins with Rav Yosef's position regarding mezonos (support obligations). When the time comes for marriage and the groom cannot marry due to oines (sickness, his bride being a nida, etc.), the Chachamim don't obligate him to pay mezonos because the inability to marry was beyond his control. However, Rava challenges this by stating that in gittin (divorce), oines doesn't work the same way - even if a husband fails to return due to circumstances beyond his control, the conditional get remains valid.
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.
