No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of trei rov (two majorities) work when one rov alone fails? The shiur analyzes the fundamental chakira whether "kol kavua kamach umach" refers to the object being decided upon or the rov itself being bekfiyus.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question on Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation of trei rov (two majorities) in cases of doubt. If one rov doesn't resolve the safek, why should two robim be effective? This leads to an analysis of the machlokes between Rashi and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding when the principle of "kol deparsh me'rov parsh" (whatever separates from the majority) applies versus when something is considered kavua (fixed in place). A significant portion focuses on understanding different readings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s language. Rashi interprets "parsh echad mi-Tzipori" as referring to someone who departed from the city, while considering alternative interpretations of whether this refers to movement from a house versus from a city. The shiur examines how this affects our understanding of when the principle of kol deparsh applies.
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.
