A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does a woman's migoo work to collect her kesubah when normally migoo l'hotzi fails? The shiur develops that by kesubah, the man's chazakah on money is weakened since the shtar creates a lien. When there's no clear ownership (anan sahadi), bari v'shema with chazakah can extract money that otherwise would stay put.
The shiur examines a complex sugya in Kesubos 12b dealing with the intersection of migoo, bari v'shema, and chazakah in monetary disputes. The central question is why a woman can use a migoo to collect her kesubah when generally migoo l'hotzi (using migoo to extract money) doesn't work. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a woman claims her husband died (making her eligible for kesubah payment), while he claims she committed adultery (disqualifying her). The Tosefta indicates that her migoo works specifically because this is bari v'shema (one party certain, one uncertain), not bari v'bari (both certain). This creates a fundamental question about when bari v'shema grants enough credibility to overcome normal monetary presumptions.
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.
