A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) say this case is only chad safeik when seemingly there's a sfeik sfeika d'asur (safek tachas, and even if lav tachas, safek goy)? The shiur analyzes the fundamental machloket between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot about whether chazaka can be mevarer (decisively resolve) a safek versus merely preserving status quo when facing conflicting chazakot.
This advanced shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with the halachic status of a woman whose virginity is in question for kehuna purposes. The Gemara (גמרא)'s kasha is that it should be a sfeik sfeika (double doubt) permitting her, while the teretz is that it's only chad safeik (single doubt), making her forbidden. Rashi (רש"י) explains the Gemara straightforwardly: the kasha assumed sfeik sfeika would permit her, but the answer reveals it's actually chad safeik, which creates an issur mi-safeik. According to Rashi, she's asur because of the safeik itself - a safek deraisa lechumra.
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.
