A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) need two cases to establish that a woman is believed about who violated her? The shiur develops that the Rambam (רמב"ם) reads the Gemara as distinguishing between asking the question when she's pregnant versus after birth. When she's still pregnant, the mother's chazaka helps the unborn child since they're halachically one entity.
The shiur analyzes a complex section of Kesubos 12b focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s presentation of two cases regarding a woman's testimony about her violation. The main question addressed is why the Gemara needs two separate cases - one regarding the woman herself and another regarding her child - when seemingly one case should suffice. Rabbi Zweig presents two approaches from the Rishonim to resolve contradictions in the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s rulings. The Rav Magid explains that when dealing with kehunah, a woman can marry anyone else even if she's forbidden to a kohen, so two witnesses are required. However, regarding the child's status, since the child would be completely disqualified, we believe even one witness according to Rabbi Gamliel. The Shmeitsa offers a different answer, distinguishing between cases that are d'oraisa versus d'rabbanan in nature.
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 12b
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.
