No community start suggestion yet.
Why is safek sveka mutar while a single safek assurs? The shiur builds on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction that eishes kohen cases involve status questions (zonah or not), while eishes Yisrael cases involve contractual obligations. When a woman married as a besulah has a civil obligation to remain so, violation becomes a breach of contract governed by different halachic principles.
This in-depth Gemara (גמרא) shiur on Kesubos 9a analyzes the fundamental distinction between safek sveka (double doubt) being permitted while a single safek (doubt) renders forbidden. Rabbi Zweig begins by questioning why Rabbi Eliezer needs to give a second example of 'pesach (פסח) pasuach' using the extremely rare case of a woman married at age two and found not to be a virgin at age thirteen, when the first case of an adult woman married to a kohen already illustrates the principle. The shiur develops a crucial distinction through careful analysis of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s organization in Hilchos Issurei Biah. The Rambam presents eishes kohen and eishes Yisrael as fundamentally different types of cases. For eishes kohen, the issue is purely a status question - whether she is a zonah who is unfit to marry a kohen. This concerns her intrinsic status, not her relationship with her husband specifically.
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.
