No community start suggestion yet.
What kind of birur is needed to determine a sotah's status when there's doubt? The Rosh explores whether resolving sotah doubts requires mammon-level proof or can use standard chazakah principles. He develops a fundamental distinction between determining facts versus determining halakhic status.
This shiur analyzes a complex piece in the Rosh regarding what type of evidence is needed to resolve doubts about a sotah's status. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether a woman who claims she was violated under duress (tachtav be-ones) should be believed, and the Rosh initially argues she cannot be believed for multiple reasons: bari v'shema la bari adif (a definite claim doesn't override a definite counter-claim), and there is no chazakah to support her claim. However, the Rosh then reconsiders, suggesting that perhaps when we're not trying to extract money (motzi mamon) but rather determining issur status, different rules apply. In such cases, a bari (her testimony) might be sufficient, especially when supported by chazakah. The Rosh identifies several potential chazakot: cheskas heter (presumption of permissibility), cheskas haguf (physical presumption), and cheskas tzedakas (presumption of righteousness).
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.
