A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we use chazakas heter lekula to permit an eshes kohen whose virginity was lost at an unknown time? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction that chazakah tells us "nothing happened," not "when something happened." Since we know something occurred, using chazakah requires determining timing—but conflicting chazakos about timing cancel each other out.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 9a dealing with the case of an eshes kohen whose virginity was lost at an unknown time. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a safek: did she lose her besulos before marriage (making her forbidden to a kohen) or after (which would be permitted)? Tosafos asks why we cannot apply chazakas heter lekula to permit her. The shiur examines multiple interpretations of Tosafos' approach. One reading suggests that by an eshes kohen, there is only one safek rather than a safek safek, making the case stricter. Another possibility is that chezkas haguf (the assumption that her physical state didn't change) overrides chezkas heter lekula, making her definitively forbidden.
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.
