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.
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.
