No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a husband believed to forbid his wife to himself in Yehuda but not believed to cost her the ketubah? The shiur explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s assumption of "ein adam rotzeh l'hafsid ketubasah" in galus versus the principle of "shavya nafshei chatichah d'isurah" in Yehuda. The analysis reveals a fundamental distinction between testimony (eidus) and creating prohibitions (issur) in self-incriminating statements.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental sugya in Kesubos 9b dealing with the credibility of a husband who claims his wife was promiscuous (pesach (פסח) patuach). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a geographical distinction: in Yehuda, the husband is believed to forbid his wife to himself but not believed regarding her ketubah payment, while in galus (exile), he is believed for both prohibitions and financial consequences. The core problem addressed is the apparent contradiction in the Gemara's reasoning. The Gemara initially suggests that "shavya nafshei chatichah d'isurah" (one makes himself into a piece of forbidden matter) only applies when the person is knowledgeable (baki), yet in our case in Yehuda, the husband may have forgotten about relations with his wife or never realized the halachic implications, suggesting he lacks proper knowledge.
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 9b
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.
