A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can someone be believed about their prohibited status when witnesses contradict them? The shiur distinguishes between shavi nafsho as testimony (where the person is a better witness about themselves than others) versus shavi nafsho as personal conviction (where we cannot feed someone what they believe is forbidden). This framework resolves apparent contradictions in the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם).
This shiur addresses a fundamental question about the halacha (הלכה) of shavi nafsho chatich d'issur (one is equal to a piece of forbidden matter regarding themselves). The Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 2a-2b presents an apparent contradiction: sometimes shavi nafsho requires that we believe the person knows what they're talking about (kim lei), while other times it applies even when there's uncertainty (lo kim lei). Rabbi Zweig analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י), the Shitah Mekubetzes, and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding when kim lei is required. The central difficulty emerges from a responsum of the Rashbam: if two witnesses testify that someone performed proper shechita while the person claims it was invalid, how can we apply shavi nafsho when there's good reason to doubt the person's expertise? This seems to contradict the principle that shavi nafsho only applies when we believe the person knows what they're discussing.
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-2b
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.
