No community start suggestion yet.
Why don't Chazal believe a woman who explains her suspicious conduct with an unknown man? The machlokes between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel isn't about ma'alos biyuchsin itself, but about women's ne'emanus in genealogical matters. Both agree that genealogical concerns override normal rules of rov and chezkas kashrus.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 105a, focusing on the fundamental concept of ma'alos biyuchsin (elevation of genealogical standards). Rabbi Zweig begins by establishing that the entire sugya deals not with Torah (תורה)-level prohibitions, but with rabbinic stringencies regarding genealogical concerns - specifically when we suspect a woman may have been intimate with someone unfit for her to marry. The core dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel centers on a woman's credibility. When a woman is seen secluded with a man (midaberet) and questioned about his identity, Rabbi Yehoshua doesn't believe her testimony, while Rabban Gamaliel does. Rabbi Zweig emphasizes that this disagreement is not about the scope of ma'alos biyuchsin itself, but solely about whether the woman has ne'emanus (credibility) in such circumstances.
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 105a
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.
