No community start suggestion yet.
Why is a woman believed when she claims mukaseitz (physical trauma) without admitting relations? The Gemara (גמרא) explores whether credibility depends on migu (she could have claimed worse) or chazaka (presumptions). Different Amoraim offer competing frameworks for when testimony works against counter-presumptions.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 13a, focusing on a complex Gemara (גמרא) discussing when a woman is believed regarding claims about her virginity and mukaseitz (physical trauma that could explain the absence of virginal signs). The central tension involves understanding why she would be believed in such cases given the principle of "bore v'shema lo bore yodef" (when one party is certain and the other uncertain, the certain party wins). The Gemara presents two main approaches to explain her credibility. The first teretz suggests she is believed due to a migu - since she could have made a stronger claim (saying the trauma occurred during relations, which would grant her a 200 dinar kesubah), we believe her weaker claim of trauma before relations (which only grants 100 dinars). The second teretz argues that chazaka (legal presumptions) supports her case.
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.
