A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer about shnei eidim seem to worsen rather than resolve the original question? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two ways a married woman becomes forbidden to her husband. One creates eidei kiyum that changes the marriage status itself; the other merely creates an issur dikeidin without altering the objective marriage reality.
The shiur begins by reviewing the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a married woman becomes forbidden to her husband. According to Tosafot, you need eidei kiyum (establishment through witnesses), which would exclude Pesach (פסח) Pasuach. However, since kinui v'stirah is effective, there appears to be a contradiction. The Gemara's resolution seems problematic: if kinui v'stirah requires eid echad b'tumah, this makes the requirement even stricter, seemingly worsening the original difficulty with Pesach Pasuach. Rabbi Zweig explains the Ritva's approach that the havamina established a din of safek with kinui v'stirah, where safek is only assur with kinui v'stirah but not without it. The Gemara's answer is that two witnesses of znut are equivalent to kinui v'stirah regarding the din of safek, with the difference being that most women consent (rov rotzah), making it better than a mere safek.
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!
Sotah 9a
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.
