No community start suggestion yet.
When can you create a halachic reality using chazakah when there are conflicting chazakahs? The shiur develops a yesod from Tosafos (תוספות) that if something's entire purpose is only to overcome another chazakah (like para adumah or mikvah), you cannot create it with chazakah since that would be circular reasoning.
The shiur begins by analyzing the difficult position of Kiveger's kashya regarding tatlareisa - when you have conflicting chazakahs (cheskas haguf vs cheskas heter lakohen vs harei beulah lefanecha), why doesn't the principle of two against one apply? The Pnei Yeshuah's answer that cheskas haguf knocks off the other two chazakahs is set aside to focus on understanding when chazakah can create versus extend a halachic reality. The main analysis centers on Tosafos (תוספות)'s discussion of para adumah. The Gemara (גמרא) derives that we follow rov (majority) from para adumah - since most animals aren't treifah, we assume the para adumah is kosher. Tosafos asks: why not derive this from chazakah instead? A para adumah must be two years old, and since treifah animals cannot live beyond one year, we know it was born wholesome. Tosafos answers: 'Adraba, hen mitamei achas koso' - you have a conflicting chezkas tumah.
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 9a
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.
