A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a woman's claim of being forced (ones) versus willing (ratzon) be believed in cases affecting her marital status? The shiur analyzes whether the bari v'shema principle applies when she asserts ones, examining disagreements between Rabbeinu Yonah and the Rosh, and why the Rambam (רמב"ם) seems to reject her testimony entirely regardless of her claim.
This shiur provides an intensive analysis of Kesubos 9a, focusing on a complex disagreement among Rishonim regarding when a married woman's testimony about being forced (ones) versus being a willing participant (ratzon) in adultery can be believed. The primary case involves a situation where a husband claims 'pesach (פסח) pasuach motzasi' - that he found his wife to be a non-virgin - creating questions about her status and permissibility to remain married to him. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that in cases involving an eishes kohen (priest's wife), even one safek (doubt) renders her forbidden, while for an eishes Yisrael (Israelite's wife), only a double safek (sfeik sfeika) creates a prohibition. The core dispute emerges around whether the principle of bari v'shema bari adif (a certain claim is better than an uncertain one) applies when the wife explains her situation.
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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
