No community start suggestion yet.
When can you say smach miut l'palga (combine the minority to half) to create a permissive ruling? The Rivash argues you need a true statistical fifty-fifty in the first doubt, not just any safek. This yesod challenges applications in cases involving money found near animal dealers and questions of techat/lo techat.
The shiur explores a fundamental question in halachic decision-making: under what circumstances can we apply the principle of smach miut l'palga (combining a minority doubt with a fifty-fifty doubt) to reach a lenient conclusion. The discussion centers on a Rivash who establishes a crucial limitation on this principle. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos presents a case involving money found in front of animal dealers (socher l'behema). According to Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, there's a safek whether the money fell from the seller (making it chulin) or the buyer (making it ma'aser sheini), yet the Gemara rules it's always ma'aser. The Ri asks: why not apply smach miut l'palga, since even if it fell from the buyer, there's a minority chance it came from his other pocket containing chulin money?
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.
