A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a married woman is found to be a beula (non-virgin), was the adultery before or after marriage? The Gemara (גמרא) presents conflicting chazakas: chezkas kashrus says it happened before marriage (making her permitted to her husband), while chezkas haguf says physical changes happen as late as possible (making her forbidden). Tosafos (תוספות) develops the principle that chezkas haguf is stronger than chezkas kashrus.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with competing chazakas when determining the timing of a married woman's adultery. The case involves a woman found to be a beula (non-virgin) where there's uncertainty whether the intercourse occurred before marriage (tachas - under her husband, making her permitted) or after marriage (lo tachas - not under her husband, making her forbidden to him). The Gemara (גמרא) presents two conflicting chazakas. The chezkas kashrus (presumption of righteousness) suggests we assume she didn't commit the severe sin of adultery, meaning the intercourse happened before marriage when it was permitted. However, the chezkas haguf (presumption regarding physical status) indicates that physical changes are assumed to happen as late as possible, suggesting the intercourse occurred after marriage.
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.
