No community start suggestion yet.
Why were Jewish women willing to die rather than submit to Hegmon's decree? Tosfos and Rashi (רש"י) offer fundamentally different readings of what constitutes martyrdom versus suicide, and when halacha (הלכה) permits self-sacrifice to avoid transgression.
This shiur presents a sophisticated analysis of a dispute between Tosfos and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the famous Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 3b about the Greek decree against Jewish brides. The decree stated that any Jewish woman married on Tuesday would be violated by Hegmon first. The Gemara calls this a "sakana" (danger) because women were "moser nefesh" (sacrificing their lives). Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that Rashi and Tosfos fundamentally disagree about what "moser nefesh" means here. According to Rashi, the women thought they would be forbidden to their husbands if violated, so they were willing to die to preserve their marriages. The Gemara's solution - "teach them that onus is permitted" - means instructing them that forced relations don't forbid them to their husbands.
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 3b
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.
