No community start suggestion yet.
Why does maalos habiyuchsin override normal rules of belief? The shiur develops two approaches: either it creates higher standards for kohanim to preserve their status awareness, or it protects the integrity of the kehuna itself. A fundamental analysis of whether yichud creates a safek bia or is an independent issur.
This shiur analyzes the complex Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 13a regarding the principle of maalos habiyuchsin and its application to cases of yichud. The Gemara presents a machlokes between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel about when a woman is believed regarding her status after being secluded with a man. The shiur begins by examining the dispute between Ziri and Rav Assi about whether "medaberes" means "nistera" (secluded). According to Ziri's interpretation, there's a machlokes Rishonim: the Ramban (רמב"ן), Rosh, and others hold she's not believed to say "lo nivalti" because of maalos habiyuchsin, while Rabbeinu Yonah, the Ridva and others hold she is believed to say "lo nivalti" but cannot use a migu when claiming she was with a kosher man.
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.
