No community start suggestion yet.
Why would the Gemara (גמרא) challenge Rav Elazar from safek sfeika? The shiur develops that problems requiring clarification cannot be resolved through statistical possibilities alone. A woman known to be a beulah requires actual birur, while a woman maintaining her bethulah status needs only absence of definitive contradiction.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kesubos 9a regarding the nature of safek sfeika and when it provides a heter. The Gemara (גמרא) challenges Rav Elazar who holds that a woman found to be a beulah is forbidden to her kohen husband even in a case of safek sfeika. Rabbi Zweig questions why the Gemara assumes this should be permitted as a safek sfeika when normally we follow the principle of efshar levarer - until you clarify, it remains forbidden. The analysis begins with examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that the woman must currently be a gedolah, as a ketanah would be permitted since anus to a ketanah is considered halachically inconsequential. This leads to a discussion of when safek sfeika applies and whether the timeframes involved create true fifty-fifty doubts or merely statistical possibilities.
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.
