No community start suggestion yet.
Is seducing a minor considered rape (oines) or consensual (rotzon)? The shiur explores a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י)/Tosafos (תוספות) (who hold pitui katana is oines) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) (who holds it's rotzon). This disagreement affects whether there's a sfeik sfeika in cases of uncertain seduction.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a regarding the halachic status of pitui katana (seducing a minor). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a married woman claims her husband found her not to be a virgin, and there's uncertainty about when the relationship occurred and whether she was a minor or adult at the time. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) hold that pitui katana (seducing a minor) has the status of oines (rape), meaning the minor cannot give meaningful consent. This creates a sfeik sfeika: maybe she was raped (oines), or maybe she consented but was a minor when it happened (which is also considered oines). According to this view, she would be permitted to her husband due to the double doubt.
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.
