No community start suggestion yet.
When does a husband's claim that he saw his wife committing adultery make her forbidden to him? The shiur analyzes whether such testimony requires kinyan v'stirah (formal warning and concealment) or qualifies as eidus (testimony), exploring Rashi (רש"י)'s view that it depends on the husband's expertise versus Tosafot's position about requiring eidei kiyum.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with when a husband's testimony about his wife's adultery creates a prohibition. The Gemara (גמרא) begins with a fundamental question: Rabbi Elazar states that a woman only becomes forbidden to her husband through kinyan v'stirah (warning followed by seclusion), but this seems to contradict cases of pesach (פסח) patuach (open doorway testimony) where no formal warning was given. Rashi (רש"י) interprets the Gemara's approach as distinguishing between different types of knowledge. When there are proper eidim (witnesses), the woman becomes forbidden. However, when the husband himself claims to have witnessed the adultery (pesach patuach), this creates a more complex situation. According to Rashi's understanding, the husband in such cases is typically lo kimle (not an expert) - he believes he saw adultery but we cannot be certain of his expertise in identifying what constitutes a prohibited act. This uncertainty should require kinyan v'stirah to create raglayim l'davar (reasonable basis for suspicion).
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.
