No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't a woman believed regarding paternity when she lived with her arus (betrothed)? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: a woman has ne'emanus to declare her child kosher but lacks any ne'emanus to establish paternity. When saying the child came from her arus, she's establishing paternity, which requires more than her word alone.
This shiur analyzes the complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 13b dealing with cases of arus-arusa (betrothed couples) and the woman's believability regarding paternity. The central question revolves around why a woman who lived with her betrothed husband isn't believed when she claims the resulting child is from him, especially given that in other cases the Mishna accepts her word about the child's kosher status. Rabbi Zweig identifies a fundamental distinction that resolves the apparent contradictions in this sugya. He explains that there's a crucial difference between ne'emanus (believability) regarding the child's status versus establishing paternity. A woman has ne'emanus to say her child is kosher - meaning the father was a kosher Jewish man - but she lacks ne'emanus to identify the specific father and establish paternity.
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.
