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.
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.
