A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a woman be believed to say she was unfaithful to a kosher man rather than a pasul one? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel about testimony in cases where adultery is suspected, exploring the roles of rov (majority), chazakah (presumptive status), and miggo (credibility enhancement).
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13a dealing with the testimony of women suspected of adultery. The discussion centers on two main cases: a pregnant woman (muberes) and a woman who speaks as if she had relations (medaberes), and how their testimony is evaluated when they claim to have been unfaithful to a kosher man rather than a pasul one. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Yehoshua argues that just as by shevuyah (a captive woman), where there are witnesses that she was violated and the majority of captors are gentiles (who would render her unfit for kehunah), she is not believed to say she wasn't violated, so too in our cases she shouldn't be believed. Rabban Gamaliel responds by distinguishing between cases: by shevuyah there are witnesses she was violated (yesh eidim), while in our case there are no such witnesses (ein eidim).
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.
