No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband claims pesach (פסח) pasuach to deny paying kesubah, why is he believed in galus but must prove his case in Yehuda? The shiur develops the tension between safek not paying kesubah versus the chazakah ein adam poreia sudah mafsida, showing how memory lapses and miggo arguments complicate the halachic determination.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9b regarding a husband's claim of pesach (פסח) pasuach (finding his wife non-virgin) and its effect on kesubah payments. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the apparent contradiction between two sugyos: the previous sugya suggested that in cases of safek (doubt), one doesn't pay kesubah, yet here we see that in Yehuda, the husband must pay despite his claim. The core issue revolves around the husband's believability when claiming pesach pasuach. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the husband is believed because of chazakah ein adam poreia sudah mafsida (a person doesn't make a feast for nothing) - since he made a wedding feast, he wouldn't falsely claim his wife was not a virgin. However, this creates a fundamental problem: if we generally follow the principle that in cases of doubt one doesn't pay kesubah, why must the husband pay in Yehuda?
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.
