No community start suggestion yet.
Why does safek sfeika overcome chazakah in some cases but not others? The shiur analyzes Tosfos's position that when a chazakah resolves only one of two doubts, safek sfeika prevails, but when both doubts can be individually resolved, no safek sfeika exists.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex Tosafot on Kesubos 9a dealing with the relationship between safek sfeika (double doubt) and chazakah (legal presumption). The discussion begins with the Penei Yehoshua's question on Tosafot: if cheskat haguf (presumption regarding the body) is stronger than cheskat heter (presumption of permission), why does the Gemara (גמרא) allow safek sfeika to override cheskat haguf in the case of an eishes Yisrael (Jewish woman)? Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental principle to resolve this difficulty. When a chazakah addresses both doubts in a safek sfeika, the chazakah prevails. However, when the chazakah only resolves one of the two doubts, the safek sfeika is stronger. In the case of eishes Yisrael, there are two doubts: whether relations occurred (tachat vs. lo tachat) and whether it was consensual (onas vs. ratzon). The cheskat haguf only addresses the first doubt but says nothing about the second, allowing the safek sfeika to function.
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.
