A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When is a woman believed about her own status regarding marriage to a kohen? The Gemara (גמרא) analyzes why the Mishna uses the euphemistic term "midaberet" instead of direct language, with a machlokes between whether it refers to seclusion (yichud) or actual relations, and explores the basis for her credibility.
This shiur examines a fundamental Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 13a dealing with a woman's credibility regarding her own status for marriage to a kohen. The Mishna presents a case where witnesses saw a woman "midaberet" (speaking/conversing) with a man, and she claims he was kosher and suitable for kohanim. Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer rule she is believed, while Rabbi Yehoshua rules she is not believed and is presumed to be disqualified from marrying a kohen. The Gemara focuses on the term "midaberet," analyzing why the Mishna chose this euphemistic language. Ziri interprets it as "nistera" (they were secluded), while Rav Asi reads it as "nivla" (they had relations). The shiur examines Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation that this demonstrates the principle of lashon hakavod (dignified language), noting that the Gemara in Sukkah derives this concept from a different verse.
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 13a
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.
