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.
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.
