No community start suggestion yet.
How can a mother's chazakah help determine her daughter's marriageability to a Kohen? The Gemara (גמרא) says "cheskas eim mahani lebas" but the mechanics seem impossible—the mother's chazakah tells us she can't be disqualified from marrying a Kohen, but doesn't resolve who the father was. The shiur develops that the daughter becomes a chalala only if the mother becomes a zonah, so when we rule the mother isn't a zonah (due to her chazakah), the daughter can't be a chalala either.
This shiur analyzes a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 13a-13b dealing with the principle of "cheskas eim mahani lebas" (the mother's chazakah benefits the daughter). The central question is how a mother's presumptive status can help determine whether her daughter may marry a Kohen when there's uncertainty about the father's identity. The Gemara discusses a case where both mother and daughter are believed when they testify about their marriageability. Rashi (רש"י) explains this means they're permitted to marry Kohanim. The Shach learns that regarding Kohanim, this involves a safek d'oraisa (biblical doubt), while for regular Jews it's only safek d'rabbanan (rabbinic 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 13a-13b
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.
