A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can a woman collect her kesubah in Yehuda when both spouses agree she wasn't touched during erusin? The Beis Yaakov asks why this differs from other cases where uncertainty prevents collecting money. The shiur distinguishes between evidentiary questions and halachic categories - in Yehuda it's not about proving what happened, but about losing the right to claim pesach (פסח) besulah.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question raised by the Beis Yaakov regarding an apparent contradiction in the Gemara (גמרא)'s treatment of monetary disputes involving uncertainty. The Gemara previously established that when there is doubt about whether someone is expert (baki) in the laws of pesach (פסח) pesulah, a woman cannot collect her kesubah because of the principle that one cannot extract money based on uncertainty (ein motzi mamon b'safek). However, in the case of Yehuda, even when the husband claims pesach besulah and appears credible, the woman still collects her kesubah. The shiur carefully analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, focusing on the key phrase 'd'amrinan' (we say). Rashi explains that in Yehuda, where couples were accustomed to seclude themselves (miyachad) during erusin, we operate under the assumption that intimate relations occurred. This is not merely a probability calculation but reflects our understanding of human nature in such circumstances - similar to the Talmudic principle of 'fire and flax' (esh b'neoret) which assumes certain outcomes from predictable situations.
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-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.
