A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why would a woman claiming "mishrastani nanasti" win 200 zuz when saying "mukaseitzani tachtecha" would only yield 100? The shiur explores the paradox of a migo where the alternative claim produces less money. Rashi (רש"י)'s innovative approach suggests this migo works because it demonstrates truthfulness - only an honest person would admit to losing her virginity and disqualify herself from marrying a kohen.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos dealing with the application of migo in cases where a woman claims different circumstances regarding the loss of her virginity. The central problem emerges from the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of three different claims: mishrastani nanasti (I was violated after erusin), mukaseitzani tachtecha (I was a virgin under you), and mukaseitzani lo tachtecha (I was not a virgin under you). Rabbi Zweig presents two fundamental questions that challenge the conventional understanding of migo. First, why didn't Rabbi Yochanan establish the case according to the Chachamim rather than Rabbi Meir? If mukaseitzani tachtecha yields 200 zuz, there would be no need to invoke Rabbi Meir's position. Second, and more puzzling, how can there be a valid migo when the alternative claim (mukaseitzani tachtecha) would result in less money (100 zuz) than the current claim (mishrastani nanasti for 200 zuz)?
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 12b
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.
