A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna need two cases about a woman's credibility regarding intimate relations? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak differs from the Gemara (גמרא)'s two suggested explanations, creating a significant interpretive challenge. The shiur develops that the Rambam reads both cases as establishing credibility for Rabbi Gamaliel — the first to permit the mother to marry a kohen, the second to permit her unborn daughter.
This shiur examines the complex sugya in Kesubos 13a regarding the credibility of a woman's testimony about her intimate relations, focusing particularly on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique interpretation that differs from both major explanations offered in the Gemara (גמרא). The Gemara presents two cases: a woman seen in seclusion (medaberet) and a pregnant woman (muberet), both claiming their relations were with a kosher man. The Gemara asks why two cases are needed and offers two explanations. According to Ziri, the first case involves actual seclusion (nisterah) while the second involves actual relations (nivlah). According to Rav Assi, both cases involve actual relations, but the second case teaches that we also permit her daughter (chad lach shebo, chad lach shebita).
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.
