A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna say 'besulah nisas' instead of 'nosen es habesulah'? Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם) offer different approaches to who performs the main act in chuppah. The linguistic difference reflects whether the bride or groom is the primary actor in the marriage ceremony.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental disagreement between Rashi (רש"י) and Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding the language of marriage in the Mishna. The central question revolves around why the Mishna uses 'besulah nisas' (a virgin is married) rather than 'nosen es habesulah' (he marries a virgin). The Rambam changes the Mishna's language, translating 'almanah' as 'be'ulah' and using 'nosen es habe'ulah' for a previously married woman. This change is based on his reading of the Yerushalmi and reflects a principle that different types of chuppah require different linguistic formulations. Rashi maintains the Mishna's original language, explaining that 'almanah' refers to a widow who is assumed to still be a besulah. According to Rashi's approach, both a besulah and an almanah besulah use the same terminology ('nisas') because they undergo the same type of chuppah ceremony.
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.
