No community start suggestion yet.
Why doesn't the woman have a migus to say 'lo nivalti' when witnesses saw yichud? Tosfos develops that according to Rav Yehoshua, ma'alos hayuchsin means no safek can remain unresolved - even migus cannot work where doubt exists in matters of lineage.
This shiur provides an extensive analysis of a complex Tosfos on Kesubos 13b dealing with the principles of migus (legal presumption) and ma'alos hayuchsin (elevated standards for lineage matters). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental question: when witnesses see a woman in yichud (seclusion) and she claims she was mezanah with a kosher person, why doesn't she have a migus to say she wasn't mezanah at all (lo nivalti)? Tosfos addresses several layers of this question. First, he establishes that according to Rav Yehoshua, when she says 'lakosher nivalti' (I was mezanah with a kosher person), she's not believed because it constitutes one safek, and Rav Yehoshua holds that ma'alos hayuchsin requires absolute certainty. The shiur explores why the standard migus logic doesn't apply here - normally, if someone could have made a better claim (lo nivalti), we believe their current claim.
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 13b
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.
