A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What evidence is required to prohibit an adulterous woman to her husband? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos regarding whether you need eidei kiyum (formal witnesses) versus eidei birur (clarifying witnesses), developing a fundamental distinction between creating a defect in the marriage bond versus merely establishing an issur.
This shiur presents a comprehensive analysis of Kesubos 9a, examining the complex question of what type of testimony is required to prohibit an isha she'zansah (adulterous woman) to her husband. The central dispute revolves around Rashi (רש"י)'s position that formal witnesses (eidei kiyum) are required versus Tosfos' view that clarifying witnesses (eidei birur) suffice. The Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion begins with Rav Elazar's statement about pesach (פסח) pasuach (an open entrance) and the question of whether this creates prohibition without proper witness testimony. Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental distinction between two types of prohibition that can affect a woman who commits adultery. The first is a din that creates a pgam (defect) in the ishus (marriage bond) itself, which requires eidei kiyum - just as creating or dissolving a marriage requires formal witnesses. The second is merely an issur dikedushah (prohibition due to sanctity) that affects the woman's status without fundamentally altering the marriage relationship, which only requires eidei birur.
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 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.
