No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a miggo work for one case but not another when witnesses saw different levels of impropriety? The shiur develops Tosfos's position that ma'alos habiyuchsin requires eidim only when there's a genuine safek, but when testimony creates certainty (like sfeik sfeika or valid miggo), the requirement is bypassed.
This shiur provides an intricate analysis of Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 13a, focusing on the dispute between Rav Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding when a woman is believed about her status after witnesses observe suspicious behavior. The central tension explored is why a miggo (logical argument of 'she could have said something better') works in some cases but not others when ma'alos habiyuchsin (strictness regarding lineage) applies. Rabbi Zweig carefully examines Tosfos's approach versus Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation. According to Tosfos, if the Mishna mentioned only one case, we would understand everything from Rav Gamaliel's perspective, with the second case teaching us Rabbi Yehoshua's position. However, a fundamental question emerges: how do we know that 'meuberes' (pregnant) refers to having a child rather than just being a euphemism for relations?
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 13a
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.
