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.
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.
