No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we resolve safek tumah with chazakah when an eishes kohein may have been mezanah? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)' sophisticated distinction between ownership-based chazakahs (which work even by safek tumah) versus standard chazakas tahara (which don't work).
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Kesubos 9a focuses on a fundamental question regarding the application of chazakah in cases of safek tumah. The discussion centers on the case of an eishes kohein who may have been mezanah, creating both an issue of zaynah (prohibited relations) and tumah (ritual impurity). The shiur begins by examining Tosafos (תוספות)' kushya: why doesn't the chezkas chet labayla (presumption that she belongs to her husband) protect the woman from being removed from her marriage based on uncertain evidence? Tosafos distinguishes between different types of chazakah - while standard chazakas tahara cannot resolve safek tumah, a chazakah of ownership (ba'alus) can work even in cases of safek tumah because it's a monetary-type presumption rather than a purity presumption.
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.
