No community start suggestion yet.
Why is the case of a safek chalal who marries into a family considered a sfeik sfeika when the Avnei Miluim argues it should be safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus? The shiur develops a chiddush distinguishing between paskening on the person with the safek versus paskening on those affected by that person. When we're determining the woman's status rather than the man's, we get a genuine sfeik sfeika.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in the sugya of chalal on Kesubos 14a regarding the nature of sfeik sfeika versus safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a safek chalal falls into a family, and Tosfos maintains this creates a sfeik sfeika for any woman who marries someone from that family. The centuries-old question is: why isn't this simply safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus, which would render everyone assur? The Beis Meir attempts to resolve this by comparing it to a case in the Shach involving chickens and eggs. In the Shach's case, when you have one kosher chicken and one safek treif chicken, and find an egg, it's a sfeik sfeika because either the egg came from the kosher chicken, or if it came from the safek chicken, maybe that chicken was actually kosher. However, the Avnei Miluim strongly objects to this comparison, arguing that if both chickens were safek treif (mixed up so we don't know which is which), then both mothers would be assur, and any egg would also be assur - not a sfeik sfeika.
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
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.
