A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When a husband claims pesach (פסח) pasuach (closed hymen found), does he need actual knowledge or is sincere belief sufficient? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between cases where we know he's telling the truth versus where he might be making a mistake. This creates tension with the principle that monetary claims require certainty while ritual prohibitions (shavui nafshei chatich isur) may operate on lower thresholds of knowledge.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9b dealing with a husband's claim of pesach (פסח) pasuach (finding a closed hymen), examining the interplay between monetary law (kesuvah collection) and ritual prohibition. The discussion begins with Tosafos (תוספות)'s position that when there's uncertainty about the husband's expertise in recognizing pesach pasuach, the wife loses her kesuvah because she's the one seeking money from him - the burden of proof lies on the claimant. The Gemara (גמרא) then introduces the principle of 'chazaka ain Torah (תורה) basudei afsida' (there's a presumption that one doesn't squander a festive meal) - since the husband went through with an elaborate wedding, we know he's telling the truth about what he believes, not fabricating to avoid payment. However, this doesn't necessarily make him an expert in pesach pasuach.
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.
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.
