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.
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.
