A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does a married Jewish woman who lives with a non-Jew become forbidden to her husband? Tosfos analyzes Rabbeinu Tam's position that non-Jews are like animals regarding forbidden relations. The key distinction: when done against her will (ones), there's no prohibition, but when voluntary (berotzon), she's considering the non-Jew equal to a Jew, making it actual forbidden relations.
This shiur examines a fundamental dispute in Tosfos regarding the status of relations between a married Jewish woman and a non-Jew. The Gemara (גמרא) states that community leaders should restrain themselves when non-Jewish authorities demand Jewish women, suggesting there's no obligation of martyrdom (yeharig v'al ya'avor). This implies it's not considered forbidden relations (gilui arayos). Rabbeinu Tam explains that a non-Jew is considered like an animal (behema) regarding forbidden relations, therefore it doesn't constitute gilui arayos and doesn't make the woman forbidden to her husband. The Rivash understands this literally - that any relations with a non-Jew never prohibit the woman to her husband. However, the Ridvaz and Rosh disagree, maintaining that while it's not gilui arayos requiring martyrdom, it still prohibits the woman to her husband when done voluntarily.
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.
