No community start suggestion yet.
When determining if a woman may remain married to her husband, which principle applies — bori (certainty) or chazakah (presumptive status)? Rashi (רש"י) argues that by a ketana (minor), bori has no weight since she lacks discriminating ability, so the hetter must work through chazakah alone. This reading resolves Tosafos (תוספות)'s difficulties about why the Gemara (גמרא) doesn't invoke bori in both the hava amina and maskanah.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos regarding the principles that permit a woman to remain married when there are questions about her husband's status. The central debate revolves around whether the halachic permission operates through the principle of bori (certainty of statement) or chazakah (presumptive status). Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that the entire sugya does not rely on bori at all, neither in the hava amina nor the maskanah. His reasoning is based on the case involving a ketana (minor girl). Since a ketana lacks the intellectual capacity for discriminating judgment, her statement cannot carry the weight of bori. Additionally, she cannot be considered "isha bodekes umazanah" (a woman who examines and is careful), which would be necessary for that principle to apply.
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 14a-15a
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.
