No community start suggestion yet.
How can a woman marry a kohen when we're uncertain if the man who violated her was a chalal? Rashi (רש"י) learns the heter is purely chazakah-based, requiring no testimony at all. Tosfos argues the case requires bari (certain testimony) but allows two rovs (majorities) to create sufficient certainty for marriage.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosfos on Kesubos 14b regarding the halachic requirements for a violated woman to marry a kohen. The central question revolves around whether certain testimony (ta'anas bari) is required, or whether chazakah (presumptive status) combined with statistical majorities (rov) suffices. Rashi's position is that according to Rav Gamaliel, the woman's chazakah of kashrus alone permits the marriage, even with rov pesulim (majority of disqualified men). Rabbi Zweig explains that Rashi learns "hemed ishah al chazakasa" - she remains on her presumptive status of kashrus. This creates several difficulties: How does this reconcile with the previous sugya on Amud Alef where Rav Gamaliel requires bari? How does this avoid the principle of "ruba chazakah ruba adif" (majority overrides 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 14b
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.
