No community start suggestion yet.
How does ed echad work for tumah when the Torah (תורה) normally requires two witnesses? The shiur develops that kinuy and stirah with ed echad functions because it creates raglayim l'davar - together they constitute valid edus on tumah, even without direct eyewitness testimony of the forbidden act.
This shiur examines Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 9a's discussion of the sotah process, specifically addressing the complex interplay between kinuy (warning), stirah (seclusion), and ed echad (single witness) for tumah. The central question revolves around how a single witness can be believed regarding tumah when the Torah (תורה) typically requires two witnesses for testimony. Rabbi Zweig analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the mechanics of this halacha (הלכה). Rashi explains that ed echad works because when combined with kinuy and stirah, it creates raglayim l'davar (circumstantial evidence) that establishes she was mezanah. The kinuy and stirah provide the foundation, and the ed echad adds sufficient proof to make it like proper edus. This is compared to cases where witnesses see yichud (seclusion) for kiddushin, which is considered as if they witnessed the actual biah.
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.
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.
