A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) use the term 'neeman l'osro alav' rather than simply 'asur alav'? The term 'neeman' suggests a chiddush in credibility rather than objective truth. The shiur explores whether shavya nafsheh chaticheh d'isur creates subjective believability or establishes objective facts.
This shiur examines Masechta Kesubos focusing on the principle of 'neeman l'osro alav' and its relationship to shavya nafsheh chaticheh d'isur. Rabbi Zweig analyzes why the Gemara (גמרא) uses language of credibility ('neeman') rather than simply stating 'asur alav,' questioning whether this indicates a fundamental distinction in how shavya nafsheh operates. The discussion centers on Rab Elazar's statement about 'Pesach (פסח) Pasuach matzasi' - finding her already violated. The Gemara's use of 'neeman l'osro alav' raises the question of whether we're dealing with objective truth or subjective believability. Rabbi Zweig explores two possible interpretations: either the chiddush lies in extending shavya nafsheh to cases where the person lacks expert knowledge, or the chiddush is in overcoming the woman's chazakah despite the safek.
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 121b
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.
