No community start suggestion yet.
Why do the Tosafos (תוספות) rule that a *chalal* who gets mixed up creates a *safek safeka* for his wife's status? The standard principle is that *safek echad b'guf, safek echad b'taruvos* cannot generate a *safek safeka*. The shiur explores the Beis Meir's novel distinction and the Avnei Milu'im's critique.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question on Tosafos (תוספות) in Kesubos 14a regarding the application of *safek safeka* principles. The case involves a *chalal* (ritually disqualified priest) who becomes mixed up with another person, creating uncertainty about his wife's status for *kehuna* (priestly marriage). Tosafos rules this constitutes a valid *safek safeka*: perhaps she didn't have relations with the *chalal* at all, and even if she did, perhaps he wasn't really a *chalal*. However, this appears to contradict the established principle of *safek echad b'guf, safek echad b'taruvos* - when one doubt concerns the object itself and another concerns mixing, there's no valid *safek safeka* because the doubts weren't simultaneous.
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.
