No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a safek sotah (suspected adulteress) subject to chalitzah but exempt from yibum? The Gemara (גמרא) asks: if "tumah" is written even by safek sotah, shouldn't she be fully forbidden like a vadai sotah? The shiur develops multiple mehalchim—whether safek tumah creates a real issur, whether yichud itself is arayos, and whether safek is treated ke'vadai—and shows how Tosafot and the Raavad diverge on the fundamental nature of safek tumah.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Nedarim 10a-11b addressing the halachic status of a safek sotah (woman suspected of adultery) regarding chalitzah and yibum. The central question is: if the Torah (תורה) writes "tumah" on a safek sotah, why is she only prohibited from yibum but still subject to chalitzah? Why doesn't the tumah designation completely exempt her from chalitzah as well? Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary on the Mishna, which states that a woman who entered into yichud (seclusion) with another man and remained there long enough for intimacy (kedei tumah) is forbidden to her husband and forbidden to eat terumah if she is a kohenes. Rashi's choice of case—a kohenes eating terumah from her father's house rather than the simpler case of an eishes kohen (wife of a kohen) eating terumah—raises questions. Rabbi Zweig suggests several possibilities: perhaps safek tumah does not prohibit a wife of a kohen from eating terumah (only a daughter of a kohen); perhaps the prohibition is specifically related to becoming a chalalah rather than a zonah; or perhaps the kenyan kaspo (ownership rights) of the husband are not removed by safek tumah.
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!
Nedarim 10a-11b
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.
