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.
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.
