No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) allow sfeik sfeik to permit remarriage when rov kosher cannot overcome ma'alos l'yuchsin? The analysis develops a crucial yesod: sfeik sfeik works because there's actually no safek at all - what appears as two doubts creates a situation where no real doubt exists, unlike rov which acknowledges uncertainty while trying to resolve it.
This shiur analyzes a challenging Rashi (רש"י) on Kesubos 14a regarding the mechanics of sfeik sfeik versus rov in cases of ma'alos l'yuchsin. The central question emerges from the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of an almanas ish - if Rabbi Yehoshua invalidates even rov kosher due to ma'alos l'yuchsin concerns, how can sfeik sfeik be more effective than rov? The shiur explores Rashi's fundamental insight that sfeik sfeik operates on an entirely different halachic mechanism than rov. While rov acknowledges the existence of a safek and attempts to resolve it through statistical probability, sfeik sfeik creates a situation where no real safek exists at all. The analysis demonstrates that when examining what affects the second generation (the almana), there is no actual doubt - the compounded uncertainties cancel each other out rather than creating a genuine halachic question.
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 14a
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.
