A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What kind of testimony constitutes eid echad b'tumah in sotah cases? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s position that eid echad b'tumah is not real eidus but rather raglayim l'davar — circumstantial evidence creating stigma. This approach distinguishes between two separate halachos: actual testimony requiring two witnesses versus kiyur-based disqualification that operates through public shame.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 9a, focusing on the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of eid echad b'tumah (single witness testimony regarding a sotah's alleged infidelity). Rabbi Zweig examines a fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the nature of this testimony and its relationship to the broader laws of sotah. The Gemara begins with Rav Elazar's statement that a pesach (פסח) pasuach (open entrance) renders a woman forbidden to her husband. The initial assumption is that a woman is only forbidden through kinyan v'stirah (warning and seclusion) followed by two witnesses. However, the Gemara challenges this by noting that we have established cases where eid echad b'tumah suffices to render her forbidden.
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.
