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.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
