A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can Tosfos say sefeik sfeika overcomes chazakas mamon when Mamon Ein Hochin Achar Rov? The shiur builds on the Pnei Yehoshua's insight that ketubahs are different - the holder is mochzik, not fully owning. This distinction transforms the question from creating obligation into determining possession.
The shiur addresses a fundamental contradiction in Tosfos regarding sefeik sfeika (double doubt) against chazakas mamon (monetary presumptions). The Pnei Yehoshua asks how Tosfos can say sefeik sfeika can extract money when the principle is Mamon Ein Hochin Achar Rov (we don't follow majority in monetary matters). The Gemara (גמרא) on 9b shows conflicting positions - on amud beis, Tosfos says sefeik sfeika overcomes chezkas mamon, while on amud alef, chazaka overcomes sefeik sfeika. The shiur develops the Pnei Yehoshua's resolution that ketubahs operate differently because 'Omed Ligvos Ki Gavui Domi' - documents ready for collection are like already collected. This creates a unique status where the woman with the ketubah is considered mochzik (holding) the money, not merely claiming it. The Mordechai supports this by showing that rov works by ketubahs in cases where the woman's childbearing status affects her ketubah value.
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 9b
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.
