No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos require a chezkas heter when discussing the case of an eishes kohen who may not be baki in pesach (פסח) pasuah? The analysis develops different approaches between Tosfos, Tosfos Yeshanim, and the Maharsha on when sfeik sfeika applies for collecting a kesubah and the mechanics of determining who is the muchzak in monetary disputes.
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of Tosfos on Kesubos 9b regarding the requirement of chezkas heter in cases involving an eishes kohen whose husband may not be expert (baki) in distinguishing pesach (פסח) pasuah. The central question is why Tosfos requires a chezkas heter to permit the woman to her husband when there's already a doubt about his expertise. The shiur explores several approaches to understanding Tosfos. One possibility is that Tosfos holds there is a rov (majority) that the husband is indeed baki. If so, without a chezkas heter, the miyut (minority) of ein baki wouldn't be sufficient to create a proper sfeik sfeika. The chezkas heter combines with the miyut ein baki to create an effective safek against the rov baki.
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.
