No community start suggestion yet.
How does sfeik sfeika work when there's rov that he's boki in pesach (פסח) pasuach? Tosfos holds that even with rov boki, if she has a chezkas heter, we say smoch miyut l'chazakah which weakens the rov to function halachically as a safek. This creates a unique sfeik sfeika where the first 'safek' is really a rov that can't be used to assur.
This shiur addresses profound questions raised by the Gedolei HaChachmim including the Kivengir, Pnei Yehoshua, and Marsha on a complex Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 9b dealing with pesach (פסח) pasuach (torn hymen) testimony. The central issue revolves around the mechanics of sfeik sfeika when there's a rov (majority) that men are boki (expert) in pesach pasuach versus the woman's chezkas heter. The Marsha asks a fundamental question: why does Tosfos invoke chezkas heter rather than simply applying sfeik sfeika? He suggests this indicates Tosfos is discussing cases beyond the Gemara's scope, such as a woman who is both prusmei bas gimel (definitely not a virgin) and eishes kohen (where even ones would be forbidden). The shiur challenges this reading as forcing Tosfos to discuss unrelated scenarios.
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.
