No community start suggestion yet.
Why would the Gemara (גמרא) permit women to transgress rather than die if Yeharig V'Lo Yaavor applies to adultery? Rabbeinu Tam argues that a married Jewish woman with a non-Jewish man isn't considered gilui arayos but rather like bestiality. This creates shocking implications about Torah (תורה) prohibitions and the nature of passive sin.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kesubos 3b regarding the Gemara (גמרא)'s ruling that women being threatened with death may transgress rather than be killed. Tosfos asks how this could be permitted given the principle of Yeharig V'Lo Yaavor (be killed rather than transgress) that applies to the three cardinal sins including adultery. Rabbeinu Tam's revolutionary answer distinguishes between a married Jewish woman living with a Jewish man versus a non-Jewish man. He argues that with a non-Jew, it's not considered gilui arayos (sexual impropriety) at all, but rather like bestiality - meaning there's no Torah (תורה) prohibition of adultery. This is supported by the Gemara's question about Esther living with Achashverosh, which assumes it was problematic because it was public (creating a chillul Hashem (ה׳) issue), not because of inherent adultery.
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 3b
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.
