A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do we understand the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of delayed marriage due to illness versus rabbinical decree? The shiur develops two distinct approaches: illness as true onas (exempting circumstance) versus rabbinical extension of the obligation's timeframe. This distinction affects when a husband becomes obligated in spousal support.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 2a, focusing on a fundamental machlokes between two interpretations (lishnos) in the Gemara (גמרא) regarding delayed marriage obligations. The central issue involves understanding why certain circumstances exempt a man from providing mezonos (spousal support) when marriage is delayed. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Maharsha's position that distinguishes between delays "for his sake" versus "for her sake." The Maharsha argues that when a rabbinical decree (takanas chachamim) delays marriage for the groom's benefit, he remains obligated in mezonos because he's not truly an onas (in exempting circumstances). However, when the delay benefits the bride, such as with the three-day preparation period, he's exempt from mezonos. Rabbi Zweig raises difficulties with this approach, noting that the Gemara's language ("lefikach chalah") suggests the opposite of the Maharsha's reading.
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.
