No community start suggestion yet.
What is the status when a minor has relations with an adult woman? The shiur analyzes the Talmudic debate between Rav and Shmuel about whether this constitutes mukases, examining Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot's competing interpretations of whether besula is broken and exploring the deeper question of what creates the legal status of mukases.
This shiur explores the complex Talmudic discussion in Kesubos 12b regarding the halachic status of a woman after katan haba al gedolah (a minor having relations with an adult woman). The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental dispute between Rav, who holds that such a woman has the din of mukases (compromised woman who receives only 100 zuz ketubah), and Shmuel, who maintains ein mukases b'basar (there is no mukases status from such relations). Rabbi Zweig analyzes the major dispute between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot regarding the underlying mechanics of this case. According to Tosafot, there is no actual breaking of the besula (hymen), and the dispute centers on whether such limited physical contact creates the legal status of mukases despite the lack of physical change. Rashi, however, appears to learn that the besula is indeed broken, leading to a more complex analysis of what constitutes mukases.
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.
