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.
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.
