A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why is marriage delayed for her sake considered an ones, but not for his? The shiur develops a chiddush that when obstacles to marriage arise for her benefit (like preparing for shechta), it creates a legitimate ones status. When delays are for his needs (like tanis besulim), he should have married earlier and bears responsibility.
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 2a regarding the halachos of marriage timing and the concept of ones (circumstances beyond one's control). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining why the Mishna phrases the law as "besulah nisus" (a virgin gets married) rather than "nisus besulah" (marrying a virgin), suggesting this indicates the halacha (הלכה) is structured around her needs rather than his obligations. The core analysis centers on understanding when someone is considered an ones regarding marriage timing. The Gemara discusses a case where the time for marriage (higiyah zman) arrives but various circumstances prevent the wedding. Rabbi Zweig cites the Maharsha's fundamental principle: if the delay is for her sake (such as the three-day preparation period of shechta), the husband is considered an ones and is exempt from the obligation to provide mezanos (financial support). However, if the delay is for his sake (such as needing tanis besulim to verify her virginity), he is not considered an ones because he should have anticipated this need and married earlier.
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.
