No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Tosfos hold that sfeik sfeika cannot overcome chazaka in some cases but can in others? The shiur develops two fundamental approaches to sfeik sfeika: either it creates "no safek at all" when combining two facts is required for issur, or it works through "two matirim" that must be able to coexist independently.
The Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 9b discusses a complex case involving the validity of a woman's marriage and her entitlement to her kesuba. The central tension revolves around when sfeik sfeika (double doubt) can overcome chazaka (presumptive status), with Tosfos appearing to take contradictory positions on different parts of the page. The shiur begins by examining Tosfos's position that with a sfeik sfeika of safek baki/safek eino baki (doubt whether the witness knows what he's talking about), combined with safek ones/safek ratzon (doubt whether relations were forced or consensual), the woman should still be forbidden to her husband. However, Tosfos Yeshanim objects that this is not a proper sfeik sfeika misapach (overlapping double doubt) because one cannot start with safek ones/safek ratzon without first establishing that relations occurred.
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.
