No community start suggestion yet.
Can safek ones versus safek rotzon create a case where a woman remains mutar to her husband? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s crucial distinction between mezanah berotzon (which violates cheskas tzadekes) and being talked into something (pitui), which preserves righteousness while still creating an issur. This reading resolves the Rosh's fundamental challenge about cheskas tzadekes.
The shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 9a dealing with the case of pesach (פסח) pasuach matzasi - a husband who discovers his wife was not a virgin. The core issue is whether this creates a safek safeka (double doubt) or a single safek, and the resulting halachic status. Rashi (רש"י) explains that the case assumes the woman is now a gedolah (adult), because if she were still a katanah (minor), pitui katan would be considered ones (coercion), making her permitted to her husband. Rabbi Zweig notes that Rashi adds the word "gedolah" which doesn't appear explicitly in the Gemara, but is necessary to avoid contradiction with other sugyos.
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.
