No community start suggestion yet.
How does eid echad betumah work after kinui and stira? The shiur explores whether sotah requires eidus on the actual ma'aseh bia or whether eidus on tumah (signs of impropriety) suffices. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos disagree on whether pesach (פסח) pasuach works as eidei kilum or creates a hochacha of bia.
The shiur presents a detailed analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 9a, specifically examining the machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos regarding the nature of eidus required by sotah. The Gemara's discussion centers on whether ein isha nesara la'baalah ela b'kinui v'stira - that a woman only becomes forbidden to her husband through warning and seclusion - requires actual eidei kilum (witnesses to the act itself) or whether other forms of testimony suffice. The Rajbaz raises fundamental questions about the Gemara's lengthy discussion, asking why the Gemara needs such elaborate argumentation if the only innovation is that eidim are acceptable. According to Rashi's interpretation, the Gemara initially assumes that even with eidim present, kinui v'stira is required, establishing this as a separate halachic requirement beyond mere testimony. However, the Gemara challenges this by asking why pesach (פסח) pasuach wouldn't be equivalent to two witnesses if eidim are generally acceptable.
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.
