No community start suggestion yet.
Why does miggo lo shichya work by borei v'shem but not by borei and borei? The shiur develops that borei v'shem functions through stronger ta'anos rather than rayos, making miggo effective even when it's not compelling proof of honesty.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the mechanics of miggo lo shichya in different types of claims. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafos's position that according to Sumchus, even borei v'shem results in yachloqu, not borei adam, because otherwise certain kashyas in the Gemara (גמרא) would be unanswerable. The central question emerges: how can miggo lo shichya be effective by borei v'shem when the Rosh holds that such a miggo doesn't work in other contexts because mukasetes lo shichya? The shiur develops two primary approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first approach distinguishes between different types of muchzak status. When someone is muchzak with borei v'shem, they don't have a full chazakas ownership but merely a din of 'leave it where it is' (al tistayeg mi'safek). This weakened muchzak status allows miggo to be effective for hotza'ah, since miggo can overcome inertia but cannot overcome genuine ownership rights.
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 12b
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.
