A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why isn't it considered mekach tos when a man marries assuming the woman is a besulah and discovers she's actually a beulah? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod that kesubah money is not a purchase price for the woman but payment for the relationship itself. Since sharei konsa rishon creates the same quality relationship regardless of her status, there's no basis for claiming mekach tos.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos examining when a marriage might be considered mekach tos (a mistaken transaction). The Mishna states that if a woman was besulah min hanesuin (a virgin from her first marriage) but is found to be a beulah, she still receives a kesubah of one hundred zuz. This creates a fundamental question: why isn't this considered mekach tos if the husband married her assuming she was a besulah? The Gemara (גמרא) presents a machloket between Rava and Rav Ashi. According to Rava, konsa bechezkas besulah v'nimtza beulah still receives one hundred zuz because there are witnesses (eidim) that she never went into seclusion (yichud) during her first marriage. However, this position faces the Ran's famous difficulty against the Rambam (רמב"ם): if chuppah requires yichud (according to the Rambam's shitah), then 'lo nistara' means there was never a valid chuppah in the first place.
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 12a
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.
