No community start suggestion yet.
When does liability for knas (monetary penalty) begin in cases of oinas - at initial contact or only upon completion? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י)'s view that liability depends on actual violation of virginity with Tosafos (תוספות)' approach that treats the entire act as one continuous violation subject to kim lei d'rabbanan principles.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Sanhedrin 73b, focusing on the complex halachic question of when a person becomes liable for knas (monetary penalty) in cases of oinas (rape). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether financial obligation begins at ha'arah (initial contact) or only at gemar bi'ah (completion of the act). Rashi (רש"י)'s position is examined first, arguing that one is not liable for payment until gemar bi'ah based on the principle "shemoit zi besulah" - because the Torah (תורה) is particular about the status of besulah (virgin). Rashi brings the pasuk "na'arah besulah asher lo aras" to show that the monetary obligation stems from hasharas besulah (breaking virginity), which occurs at gemar bi'ah.
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!
Sanhedrin 73b
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.
