A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a husband claim his wife was not a virgin, and when is he believed against contradicting evidence? The shiur develops the principle of shavi nafshi chatei chadisur - that one's testimony against oneself carries special weight. Even when his expertise is questionable, his personal certainty creates a binding legal reality.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos dealing with a husband's claim that he found his wife was not a virgin (pesach (פסח) pasuach matzasi), focusing on the halachic principle of shavi nafshi chatei chadisur (I believe myself more than 100 witnesses). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where there are multiple uncertainties (sfeik sfeika) about whether the woman was violated and whether it was consensual or forced. Rashi (רש"י) explains that when there is no blood (tainis damim ein lo), this itself would be evidence, making the husband's claim unnecessary. The Gemara's difficulty is understanding why the husband would need to make this declaration if the physical evidence already spoke for itself. The shiur explores whether there is an obligation to clarify (chiyuv l'varrer) uncertainties, particularly in cases of continuous use versus one-time consumption.
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
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.
