A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a woman claim she wasn't violated after being secluded? The shiur analyzes Rabbi Yeshua and Rabban Gamaliel's dispute about whether midabaris creates a safek that prevents us from saying 'lo nivola,' versus Gamaliel's position that there's no safek at all.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 13b dealing with the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yeshua and Rabban Gamaliel regarding cases of yichud (seclusion) and the woman's credibility. The discussion centers on two cases: midabaris (where she speaks about the encounter) and mubaris (where she is pregnant), and whether these situations create a safek (doubt) about violation. Rabbi Zweig explains that according to Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, Rabbi Yeshua holds that midabaris creates a safek because 'ein apik tropis l'arias' - we cannot definitively say there was no violation. This means that even if the woman claims 'lo nivolti' (I wasn't violated), there remains doubt. Rabban Gamaliel, however, maintains that midabaris doesn't create any safek at all, and the woman's word can be accepted.
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 13b
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.
