No community start suggestion yet.
What distinguishes tainas domem from tainas pesach (פסח) pasuch in claims about a bride's status? When there are objective facts (like absence of blood) showing she wasn't a virgin, that creates tainas domem - not merely competing testimonies. The chazaka of ein adam torech b'suda mafsida then supports the visible facts rather than determining who's lying.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between two types of claims (tainas) regarding a bride's virginity status and the resulting implications for belief and financial obligations. The discussion centers on Kesubos and explores when a husband's claim that his bride was not a virgin (pesach (פסח) pasuch) is believed versus when there are objective facts supporting his position (tainas domem). Rabbi Zweig establishes that pesach pasuch represents a situation where both parties are making competing claims about the truth - he says she wasn't a virgin, she says she was. In such cases, we apply the chazaka of ein adam torech b'suda mafsida (a person doesn't cause himself a loss) to determine credibility. However, tainas domem represents a fundamentally different scenario where objective evidence exists supporting one party's claim.
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.
