A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How could Dovid HaMelech live with Bas Sheva when she was married to Uriah? The Gemara (גמרא) offers two approaches: either Dovid acted under duress (oines), or soldiers received conditional gittin before battle that took effect retroactively. The analysis explores the mechanics of conditional divorce and when a woman becomes forbidden to her husband versus other men.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 9b's resolution of the apparent problem with Dovid HaMelech's relationship with Bas Sheva while she was married to Uriah HaChiti. The Gemara presents two primary approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first teretz suggests that Dovid acted under oines (duress). However, this raises serious questions about the nature of this duress. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that Dovid threatened Bas Sheva with death as king creates moral difficulties - would such royal coercion even be legitimate? The shiur explores an alternative understanding that Dovid, through ruach hakodesh, knew this was his proper zivug and convinced Bas Sheva of this divine sanction, similar to stories in Sefer Chassidim where people are misled about religious obligations.
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.
