A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What exactly must a woman testify to be permitted to marry a kohen after questionable relations? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: only when there's re'u she-nivlah or re'u muberes must she provide testimony with two supporting factors. For mere re'u nistera, she owes no explanation at all—even silence permits her to marry a kohen.
The shiur begins by examining the Vilna Gaon's question on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s formulation regarding a woman's believability (ne'emanus) in cases of questionable intimate relations. The Rambam rules according to Rav Asi's reading of the Mishna, discussing re'u she-nivlah and re'u muberes, yet we pasken like Ze'iri. The Gaon asks why the Rambam follows Rav Asi when halachically we rule like Ze'iri, and why he doesn't address the case of re'u nistera. Rabbi Zweig distinguishes between two fundamental questions: what a woman is believed to say versus why she is believed. Today's focus is on the scope of her believability—what testimony she must provide. The shiur analyzes the core dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the basis of a woman's believability according to the Chachamim versus Rabbi Yehoshua.
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 13b
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.
