A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) present two separate cases when discussing a woman's testimony about her conduct? The analysis explores Tosafot's complex reading that distinguishes between what witnesses saw versus what the woman claims happened. This leads to fundamental questions about when miggo (better alternative claim) arguments work and how rabbinic stringencies (ma'alos habiyuchsin) interact with Torah (תורה)-level prohibitions.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of Kesubos 13b, focusing on a complex dispute between Tosafot and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the nature of testimony and credibility in cases involving a woman's marital status. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where witnesses saw a woman in seclusion (yichud) and the question of whether she should be believed regarding what occurred. The central machloket revolves around the interpretation of 'nistra' (secluded). Tosafot argues that nistra means the woman admits to improper conduct, saying 'lekashya nivalti' (I was violated against my will), while claiming she could have said 'lo nivalti' (nothing happened) and been believed through miggo. This interpretation creates several difficulties: why isn't this considered miggo de-boy shasek (a miggo where she could claim the person departed), why doesn't Rabbi Yehoshua accept this miggo, and how does this relate to the principle of ein oisnah la-yichud (we don't suspect a woman of immoral conduct in seclusion).
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.
