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.
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.
