No community start suggestion yet.
What kind of testimony is needed to prohibit a woman to her husband after adultery? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot on whether you need eidei kiyum (formal testimony) or eidei birur (clarifying testimony), developing two separate halachot in sotah.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 9a focusing on the requirements for testimony in cases of suspected adultery (sotah). Rabbi Zweig examines the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding what type of witnesses are needed to render a woman forbidden to her husband after adultery. Rashi holds that without kinui v'stirah (warning and seclusion), she cannot be forbidden to her husband unless there are shnei eidim (two witnesses), treating pesach (פסח) pasuach as equivalent to two witnesses. Tosafot argues that the Gemara (גמרא) always knew a woman becomes forbidden through witnesses, and the only question is whether the husband seeing himself renders her forbidden. Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that Tosafot's interpretation creates significant difficulties in understanding the Gemara's flow and questions. He proposes that there are two separate halachot operating: one requiring eidei kiyum (formal testimony creating the prohibition) based on the parsha of 'ki motza ba ervat davar' from Sefer Devarim, which affects the essence of the marriage (pegam ba'ishut), and another allowing eidei birur (clarifying testimony) based on the parsha of sotah in Bamidbar, which creates a din tumah on the woman herself.
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!
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 halacha forbid entering dangerous places if everything happens by Divine decree? The shiur examines the debate between Rashi and Tosfos on traveling at night, developing a fundamental distinction: Rashi holds one must avoid even deserved punishments that Hashem delays through mercy, while Tosfos holds the prohibition addresses self-inflicted harm through free will. This framework reveals how people rationalize self-destructive behavior as "hashgacha."
Why does the Gemara praise hospitality to scholars as a unique mitzvah rather than ordinary hachnasas orchim? The shiur distinguishes two mitzvahs: hachnasas orchim (providing for those in need) and connecting to talmidei chachamim (cleaving to God through scholars). Yisro's meal for the Jewish leaders wasn't charity—it was his way of bonding with those transformed by Torah, teaching that learning must fundamentally change who we are.
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!
