No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a husband believed to claim pesach (פסח) pasuch (lack of virginity) in Galil but not in Yehuda? The shiur develops the principle of chazakah ein adam toref besula mafsida and shows how yichud assumptions in Yehuda create doubt about whether the husband forgot previous relations. The analysis explores contradictions with earlier Gemara (גמרא) rulings on safek cases.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 9b regarding the differential treatment of pesach (פסח) pasuch claims between Yehuda and Galil. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when a husband claims pesach pasuch matzasi (I found her not a virgin), he is believed in Galil to deprive his wife of her kesubah, but not believed in Yehuda. The fundamental principle underlying this distinction is chazakah ein adam toref besula mafsida - a person doesn't go through the trouble and expense of making a wedding only to divorce his wife afterward. This chazakah establishes his credibility when claiming pesach pasuch. Rashi (רש"י) explains the Yehuda exception based on the assumption that couples engaged in yichud (seclusion) during the betrothal period. In Yehuda, where yichud was common practice, even though the chazakah suggests the husband is telling the truth about finding pesach pasuch, there's a possibility he forgot about previous intimate relations. This doubt (shema shachach) is sufficient to require him to pay the kesubah, even while she remains forbidden to him as an adulteress.
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.
