No community start suggestion yet.
How does the principle "chazakas eim mahani lebas" work when we don't know who the father is? The shiur develops a chiddush that chalal status passes through the mother, not directly from father to child. This resolves why the mother's chazaka can help the daughter despite our uncertainty about paternity.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b regarding the principle of "chazakas eim mahani lebas" (the chazaka of the mother benefits the daughter). Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Rav Kiveger's approach to understanding why the Mishna mentions "nosenu lemamzer" rather than simply "goy," which would seem to present a stronger case. Rav Kiveger explains that this teaches the chiddush that even with rov kosher, Rabbi Yehoshua still considers her pasul. The core difficulty emerges: if we have a safek regarding who the father is - potentially a mamzer, chalal, or kosher person - how can the mother's chazaka help determine the daughter's status? The mother's chazaka can only tell us that we lack sufficient evidence to disqualify her, but it cannot positively identify who the father was. This creates a fundamental problem in understanding how "chazakas eim mahani lebas" functions.
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 13b
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.
