A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What makes kinui v'stira sufficient to prohibit a woman to her husband while pesach (פסח) pasuach (his testimony) is not? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot on whether eid kiyum is required for isurei nashim. Rashi holds that isur la'baal requires explicit warning (kinui), while Tosafot maintains you need formal eidim like in kiddushin.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with the halachic requirements for prohibiting a married woman to her husband after adultery. The central question revolves around understanding why kinui v'stira (warning and seclusion followed by testimony) can render a woman forbidden to her husband, while pesach (פסח) pasuach (the husband's own testimony that he saw her commit adultery) cannot. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental kasha: if we say that pesach pasuach is not believed because even if the husband saw eidim witnessing his wife's adultery she wouldn't be forbidden to him, then what case of kinui v'stira would actually prohibit her? This leads to a deeper analysis of what constitutes sufficient testimony in matters of isurei nashim.
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.
