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!
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!
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.
