No community start suggestion yet.
Why do both parties receive malkus for forbidden seclusion according to the Rambam (רמב"ם), while the Tur holds only the man is punished? The shiur develops two approaches: Rashi (רש"י)'s view that yichud is forbidden due to suspicion of improper relations, versus the Rambam's position that yichud itself creates forbidden intimacy regardless of actual misconduct.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rishonim regarding the nature of yichud prohibitions, focusing on Kesubos 13b. The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that both parties receive malkus for yichud violations, while the Tur holds only the man is punished. Rabbi Zweig develops two distinct approaches to resolve this contradiction. The first approach, following Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, understands that yichud is prohibited because it creates a presumption of improper conduct (machshik b'nevelas). When people violate yichud warnings (mekabel hasra), this strengthens the assumption that inappropriate behavior occurred. Under this reading, only the man typically receives punishment because he is viewed as the aggressor pressuring the woman into compromising situations.
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.
