A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Rambam (רמב"ם) believe a husband who claims his wife was not a virgin, but only for rabbinic obligations? The shiur develops a fundamental chakira: chazaka here proves what he believes, not what is objectively true. A husband who genuinely believes he married a dishonest woman faces a marriage worse than death—hence the rabbinic leniency to let him leave.
This shiur explores a fundamental question in Hilchos Ishus regarding the credibility of a husband who disputes his wife's virginal status at the time of marriage. The Rambam (רמב"ם) in Hilchos Ishus 11:14 presents an apparent contradiction: he begins by stating that the kesuba is a rabbinic enactment (takanas chachamim), and disputes regarding virginity are resolved in favor of the husband by rabbinic decree. Yet the Rambam then invokes the principle "chazaka ein odom torei'ach bisudasa mafsidah" (a presumption that a person does not go to the trouble of making a wedding only to ruin it), which sounds like a substantive proof of truth, not merely a rabbinic policy decision. The question deepens when examining the next halacha (הלכה): if the husband added money to the kesuba beyond the rabbinic minimum, he must pay that additional amount even though we believe his claim that she was not a virgin. This demonstrates we don't truly believe him in an objective sense—if we did, even Torah (תורה)-level obligations would be affected by this chazaka. So what does "chazaka ein odom torei'ach bisudasa mafsidah" actually prove?
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!
Hilchos Ishus 11:14
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 Halacha
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.
Can korbanos be brought when the Beis Hamikdash is destroyed? The Rambam and Raavad debate whether "Hashem es Mikdasham" creates a din of Avoda during Churban. Rabbi Zweig develops a distinction: the Rambam holds kedusha Rishona enabled both korbanos and tefillah; the Raavad holds only tefillah remains when the edifice is gone, since Hashem's presence endures even without a physical structure.
Why don't the last eight verses of the Torah require a minyan to read? The shiur develops a fundamental chiddush in the Rambam: Simchas Torah has two distinct takanos of Kriat HaTorah — Zot HaBracha is read from the din of Yom Tov (inyan hayom), while VaYom Moshe is read from the din of Shabbos (siyum haTorah). This explains why a new minyan is required for the last eight verses, and why the Raavad's minhag of having the oleh read (not the baal koreh) signals that the final aliyah is purely Talmud Torah, not shemiat dvar Hashem.
Why does the Rambam rule that one may not violate even a shvus (rabbinic prohibition) on Yom Tov to obtain a shofar, yet permit shofar blowing on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah despite the gezeirah of carrying it to an expert? The Lechem Mishneh wrestles with an apparent contradiction: in Hilchos Shofar 1:4 the Rambam treats shvus like a full lav vis-à-vis the mitzvah of shofar, but in 2:6 he allows shofar on Shabbos even though it involves overriding both a lav and an asei.
When is a melacha on Yom Tov permitted? The shiur develops the Rambam's three-tiered framework distinguishing melachos that are food preparation itself (always permitted), food processing (permitted only l'tzorech achilah), and non-food melachos (always forbidden). The Magid Mishneh's explanation of "ho'il" emerges: intention cannot create a melacha where the act itself is inherently permitted.
