No community start suggestion yet.
How could King Dovid marry Bathsheba without violating the prohibition of adultery? The shiur analyzes the Gemara (גמרא)'s two approaches: either it was forced (ones) or Bathsheba was already divorced through conditional gittin soldiers wrote before battle. The discussion focuses on Rashi (רש"י) vs. Tosafos (תוספות) regarding whether these gittin were conditional on death or non-return from war.
This shiur explores Kesubos 9b's discussion of the famous episode between King Dovid and Bathsheba, focusing on how Dovid could permissibly marry her without transgressing the prohibition against adultery (eishes ish). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two primary approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first approach suggests it was ones (forced circumstances), meaning Dovid was compelled by forces beyond his control, which would exempt Bathsheba from becoming forbidden to both her husband Uriah and to Dovid. However, the Achronim question whether ones truly removes the prohibition of echad haba'al echad habo'el (the law that a woman who commits adultery becomes forbidden to both her husband and her paramour), particularly when only one party was under duress.
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 9b
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.
