No community start suggestion yet.
Is shav v'nafshah chateach al issuro a form of testimony (eidus) or a personal vow (neder)? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)-Raavad dispute and the Tosafot Rid's position through the lens of whether one can be mafkir another's rights. This chakira determines when amasla works and whether beit din has judicial or merely rabbinical authority in such cases.
The shiur explores a fundamental chakira regarding the nature of shav v'nafshah chateach al issuro - whether it functions as a form of testimony (eidus) or as a personal vow/prohibition (neder). This question emerges from analyzing several key sources and disputes. The primary focus is the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad regarding a married woman who tells her husband she was mezanah b'ratzon (committed adultery willingly) and then gets divorced. The Rambam holds that even if she gives an amasla (retraction/explanation), she remains forbidden to a kohen. The Raavad disagrees, holding that an amasla would work. Rabbi Zweig explains that this dispute reflects different understandings of shav v'nafshah.
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.
