No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) require two rovs (majorities) to establish validity when a single rov fails? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that when there's no bari (certainty), chazakah (presumption) can work — but only when there's truly no safek at all. Two rovs eliminate the remaining possibility of safek in a way one rov cannot.
The shiur examines a fundamental question in the Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 15a regarding the mechanics of rov (majority) in establishing genealogical validity. The basic issue is why the Gemara says that while one rov doesn't work, two rovs together can be effective — what changes when you have two rovs instead of one? Rashi (רש"י)'s approach is analyzed in detail. According to Rashi, the key principle is that you don't need a bari (certainty) in every case — chazakah (presumptive status) can work when there's no real safek (doubt). The problem with a single rov is that it leaves room for genuine doubt. For instance, if there's a rov of kosher people, but we know that sometimes the woman might go to the pasul (invalid) individuals, then we have a real safek situation where chazakah cannot operate effectively.
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 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.
