A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When Chazal say "kol hamekadesh al das rabbanan mekadesh" - that all kiddushin are subject to rabbinic approval - what are the mechanics and limits of this principle? The shiur analyzes how the Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between kiddushin with money (where rabbanan can declare the money hefker) versus kiddushin with biah, exploring whether rabbinic authority extends to creating issurei biah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle "kol hamekadesh al das rabbanan mekadesh" and the related concept of "afkiru rabbanan kiddushin minei." Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Chasam Sofer's approach to understanding the distinction between cases of "im lo bosi" (if I don't come) and "im bosi" (if I come) in conditional kiddushin, particularly regarding whether the principle of "ones rachmana patrei" (the Torah (תורה) exempts cases of duress) applies to kiddushin as it does to gittin. The discussion then turns to Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation of how the rabbinic power works. When the Gemara asks why kiddushin with money can be annulled but questions arise regarding kiddushin with biah, Rashi explains that with money, the rabbanan can make the money "maamad matanah" - as if it were given as a gift rather than for kiddushin. This removes the woman's obligation to reciprocate, making the transaction a kinyan kesef ineffective. Rabbi Zweig analyzes what "maamad matanah" means mechanically - not that they change the giver's intent, but that they remove the recipient's obligation to give something in return, making it effectively a gift.
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-3a
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.
