A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can we reconcile contradictory Gemaras about believing a woman's testimony versus a man's testimony regarding paternity? The shiur analyzes three approaches in Tosfos to resolve the apparent contradiction between our sugya and the Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos regarding when testimony is believed in cases of suspected adultery.
The shiur examines a complex Tosfos on Kesubos 14a that addresses an apparent contradiction between different Talmudic passages regarding the believability of testimony about a child's paternity. The central tension arises from comparing our Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling with a passage in Yevamos about when we believe claims regarding whether a child born to an arusah (betrothed woman) is legitimate. The Gemara discusses a case where an arusah becomes pregnant and there's a question about the child's status. According to our sugya, if the arus (betrothed man) admits to having relations with her (chad hakomoda), the child is considered legitimate according to all opinions, including Rabbi Yehoshua. However, this seems to contradict a Gemara in Yevamos that discusses cases where even with bo (testimony that they lived together) and the woman's own testimony, the child might still be considered illegitimate according to certain opinions.
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 14a
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.
