No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) ask that Rabbi Yehoshua's position on yichud contradicts the principle of "ein oisin al ha-yichud"? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that Rabbi Yehoshua only forbids when we assume actual improper relations occurred. This leads to a fundamental distinction in the Rambam (רמב"ם) between different types of yichud violations and their respective punishments.
The shiur begins by analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s challenge to Rabbi Yehoshua's position on yichud. The Gemara asks why Rabbi Yehoshua would forbid a woman to Kohanim based on yichud when the principle states "ein oisin al ha-yichud" - we don't forbid based on yichud alone. Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the Gemara is asking specifically about "ein oisin isha ba'alah" - not forbidding a married woman to her husband based on yichud. According to Rashi's understanding, Rabbi Yehoshua doesn't forbid in cases of ordinary yichud, but only when "mishum yichud machzik lo b'nevelas" - when we assume improper relations actually occurred due to the circumstances of the yichud. This occurs specifically when they were "re'u midabris" - speaking about improper matters, which indicates their immoral intentions.
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.
