No community start suggestion yet.
When does the principle of kan nimtza kan hoya apply? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach differs from Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding a woman's claim that she was violated after erusin. The analysis develops a fundamental distinction between gradual processes (like physical blemishes) and instantaneous actions (like violation).
This shiur examines a fundamental disagreement between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and other Rishonim regarding the application of kan nimtza kan hoya (where something is found, there it was) in cases of a woman claiming violation after erusin. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 11a discusses a case where a husband claims his wife was not a virgin, and she responds that she was violated after erusin. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) argue that the Mishna must be discussing a case where there was sufficient time after the chuppah for the woman to have been violated, because otherwise we would apply kan nimtza kan hoya - since the violation was discovered in the husband's domain, we would assume it occurred there originally, even before erusin. This reading requires adding significant details not explicitly stated in the Mishna.
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 11a
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.
