A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Can statistical probability (rov) establish legal reality when a child of unknown origin (tinok mushlach) is found? The shiur develops the yesod that rov cannot change essential identity - a Jew remains a Jew regardless of demographics. This distinction between factual determination and behavioral permission resolves the tension between rov and chezkas mamon.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 13a's discussion of tinok mushlach (a foundling child of unknown origin) and the application of rov (majority status) in determining legal obligations. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where there's uncertainty whether the child is Jewish or non-Jewish based on the local demographic majority, with implications for monetary obligations in damage cases. Rabbi Zweig frames the fundamental question: Does rov create a legal determination (psak) about the child's identity, or does it merely provide guidance for how we may act? The Tosafos (תוספות) and Rambam (רמב"ם) seem to indicate that when there's rov Yisrael, one must pay full damages, but this creates a difficulty with the principle of "ein hochan mamon achar rov" (we don't extract money based on majority alone when there's a chezkas mamon).
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 13a
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.
