No community start suggestion yet.
When does a mother's chazakah extend to help establish her child's status? The shiur analyzes the machlokes between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan regarding whether a mother's presumption of kashrus assists in determining her child's legitimacy, exploring the distinction between safek mamzer (which is only d'rabbanan) and definitive halachic status.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13b concerning the machlokes between Rav Elazar and Rav Yochanan regarding chezkas eim (a mother's presumptive status) and its application to her child. The central question revolves around when a mother's chazakah of being kosher extends to benefit her child's halachic status. Rav Elazar holds that chezkas eim does not help the child - the mother has a chazakah but the child does not. Rav Yochanan maintains that even when the child lacks an independent chazakah, the mother's testimony is still believed regarding the child. The Gemara (גמרא) explores what appears to be a contradiction: if we follow Rav Yochanan's position that "ma da machshava machshava b'bita" (what she thinks, she thinks regarding her daughter), how can there be cases where the child is considered a shtuki (of questionable lineage)?
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.
