No community start suggestion yet.
Can a woman claim her kesuba when her husband alleges pesach (פסח) pesucha (lack of virginity)? The shiur examines Tosafos (תוספות)'s sfeik sfeika argument: maybe he's not expert in recognizing virginity, and even if he is expert, maybe it was rape. Tosafos Yom Tov challenges whether this constitutes a proper sfeik sfeika.
This shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 9b dealing with a case where a husband claims his wife was not a virgin (pesach (פסח) pesucha) and seeks to reduce her kesuba payment. The central question is under what circumstances she can retain her full kesuba despite his claim. The Gemara explores whether this constitutes a case where she is forbidden to her husband (asur la'baal) or merely involves a mistaken transaction (mekach ta'us). Tosafos (תוספות) presents a sfeik sfeika (double doubt) argument to permit the woman to retain her kesuba: First, perhaps the husband is not expert (ein baki) in recognizing signs of virginity, and second, even if he is expert and she was indeed not a virgin, perhaps it occurred through rape (onas) rather than willful relations (ratzon). This double doubt should work in her favor.
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.
