No community start suggestion yet.
Why is an eshes kohen who was unfaithful (even by force) forbidden to return to her husband, while an eshes Yisrael is permitted? The shiur develops the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s reading that the issur stems from her becoming a zonah—a psul haguf—not merely a psul haishus. This yesod distinguishes the foundations of various issurim and resolves contradictions across the Rambam's rulings in Hilchos Sotah and Gerushin.
This shiur undertakes a deep analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Yoma 82b addressing the halachic status of an eshes kohen she'nisu (the wife of a kohen who was raped) and develops a fundamental conceptual distinction between psul haguf (a personal disqualification in the woman herself) and psul haishus (a disqualification in the marital bond). The Gemara's discussion revolves around the pasuk "acharei asher hutamah" (after she has been defiled), which forbids a woman to return to her husband after relations with another man. The pasuk initially seems to include all cases of infidelity, yet the Gemara teaches that by ones (force), an eshes Yisrael is permitted to return, while an eshes kohen remains forbidden. Rabbi Zweig explains that the Gemara's resolution—"sha'arei hi zonah" (she remains a zonah)—is the key to understanding the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach. According to the Rambam, when an eshes kohen is violated even by ones, she acquires the status of zonah. Although there is no malkos for zonah by ones (as the Gemara states "ain zonah be'ones"), the psul of zonah is nonetheless present in her as a psul haguf. Since a kohen is forbidden to marry a zonah, this psul haguf affects the ishus: the marriage itself becomes compromised because the woman now carries a disqualification that is relevant to her kohen husband. By contrast, an eshes Yisrael does not become forbidden to her husband through ones, because the psul of zonah does not affect a Yisrael—he is permitted to marry a zonah. Therefore, the psul haguf in her does not create a psul in the ishus with a Yisrael.
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!
Yoma 82b
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.
