No community start suggestion yet.
How does shavi nafshe chateichat issur work when a husband claims pesach (פסח) pasuach but lacks expertise? The shiur explores the Rashi (רש"י)-Ridvah dispute over whether this principle operates through eidus or personal issur, drawing parallels to the Rosh's framework distinguishing between clarifying facts versus establishing baseline obligations.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a concerning the principle of shavi nafshe chateichat issur (one who disadvantages himself is believed) in cases of marital disputes. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where someone claims 'pesach (פסח) pasuach motzasei' but is not a baki (expert), creating tension between believing his self-incriminating statement and the lack of authoritative knowledge. Rashi (רש"י) and the Ridvah offer fundamentally different approaches to resolving this tension. According to Rashi, even in the maskana (conclusion), the person remains lo kimle (not expert), yet shavi nafshe still applies. This suggests the principle operates outside the realm of eidus (testimony), functioning as a personal din rather than objective fact-finding. The Ridvah, conversely, maintains that kamash melon kimle - ultimately he is considered an expert, keeping the entire discussion within the framework of eidus.
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.
