No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) say ein apotropus la'arayos is a safek when discussing shvuya, but treats midaberes differently? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: according to Rav Gamaliel, midaberes creates no safek at all, unlike muberes where a real safek exists. This explains why rov doesn't apply equally across different cases.
This shiur addresses several fundamental questions (kashas) on Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation of the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion regarding a woman's believability in different circumstances. The primary focus is understanding why Rashi treats ein apotropus la'arayos as a safek regarding shvuya, while seemingly handling midaberes (speaking woman) differently. The shiur begins by outlining three main kashas on Rashi: First, ein apotropus la'arayos appears to be a safek, yet it's used to address the din of shvuya which Rashi describes as vadai nivala. Second, Rashi seems to learn that rov psulim works through chazaka, which should trigger the rule of rov vs. chazaka. Third, why doesn't the Gemara ask its kasha about rov psulim vs. rov ksheirim on muberes as well as on midaberes?
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.
