No community start suggestion yet.
Why does migu work when she claims 'mesirastani nanasti' but could have claimed 'mukaseitz ani tachtecha'? The shiur distinguishes between regular migu (schusa taina) and migu in boreir veshema cases, where you need kush dekamra—evidence the claimant is truthful—not just a winning argument.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes the complex sugya of migu (legal presumption) in cases of boreir veshema (one party certain, one uncertain) on Kesubos 13a. The central question revolves around why a woman claiming 'mesirastani nanasti' (I was seduced) is believed based on migu—she could have claimed 'mukaseitz ani tachtecha' (I am divorced) and received her kesuba. Rabbi Zweig addresses fundamental difficulties in understanding this migu. The Rashba argues there is no real migu here because even if she claimed 'mukaseitz ani tachtecha,' she wouldn't be more believed—the migu lacks the typical advantage of schusa taina (a superior claim). Tosafos (תוספות) attempts to resolve this by saying it's not a complete migu, calling it 'taina mula b'yosa' (a somewhat effective argument).
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 13a
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.
