No community start suggestion yet.
When does the principle of "smach miyut lapalga" (join the minority to the majority) apply in sfeik sfeika cases? Tosfos holds that rov rotzen eliminates true sfeik sfeika, but the Rivosh challenges this with a parallel case from Yevamos. The shiur explores whether statistical safek differs from halachic safek in determining when minorities can be combined.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes a complex Tosfos in Kesubos 9a regarding the mechanics of sfeik sfeika and when the principle of "smach miyut lapalga" applies. The shiur begins by reviewing the previous day's analysis of Tosfos, establishing that Tosfos must hold there are two different types of mater (permitted status) - one where the woman was mezanah but not during kidushin (lav tachtov), and another where even if it was during kidushin, it was through force (onis). Rabbi Zweig presents the Kiveger's alternative explanation that Tosfos is not discussing sfeik sfeika at all, but rather arguing that if you start with safek onis/safek rotzen (willing), you cannot then apply sfeik sfeika because if it was willing, it couldn't involve a minor (katana). This creates an internal contradiction that prevents the double doubt from functioning.
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.
