No community start suggestion yet.
Does a sotah require eidim (witnesses) to create the prohibition, or merely to prove it? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) on whether witnesses serve a kiyum function (creating the halachic reality) or birur function (clarifying what happened). The different approaches lead to divergent readings of the entire Gemara (גמרא).
This shiur presents a detailed analysis of Kesubos 9a, focusing on the complex sugya regarding the requirements for a sotah (suspected adulteress) to become prohibited to her husband. The central question revolves around whether a woman becomes asur (forbidden) to her husband solely through kinuy u'stirah (warning and seclusion) or whether eidim (witnesses) are also required. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the Gemara (גמרא)'s kashya (question): "Ein ishah neseres l'ba'alah ela al yedei kinuy u'stirah" - a woman only becomes prohibited to her husband through warning and seclusion. This seems to contradict cases where witnesses see adultery directly, such as pesach (פסח) pasuach (an open doorway case), where no formal kinuy u'stirah process occurred.
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
