No community start suggestion yet.
When is a mother believed about her child's lineage, particularly regarding Kohen status? The shiur analyzes the dispute between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan about maternal testimony. Rabbi Zweig resolves apparent contradictions by distinguishing between d'oraisa and d'rabbanan prohibitions and clarifies that 'shtuki' here means excluded from Kohen status, not pasul for marriage.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b dealing with the halachic status of a child of uncertain paternity (vlad shtuki) and when a mother's testimony is believed regarding lineage. The discussion centers on a fundamental dispute between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan about the credibility of maternal testimony concerning her child's status. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation and identifies several difficulties. According to Rashi, the case involves a woman claiming her child's father is a Kohen, making the child eligible for Kohen status. However, Rav Elazar holds that while a mother is believed regarding herself (due to her chazakah), she is not believed regarding her daughter when it comes to prohibitions that are d'oraita in nature, such as a bas challal marrying a Kohen.
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 13b
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.
