A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When does the obligation of ketubah begin — at erusin or at nissuin? The shiur explores how this fundamental question impacts the case of mesharastani nenasti, where conflicting claims arise about the wife's status. The Tosafot's position that ketubah obligations begin only at nissuin creates significant interpretive challenges for understanding our Gemara (גמרא).
The shiur examines a complex sugya in Kesubos 12b dealing with the case of mesharastani nenasti ("from when you betrothed me I was violated"). The core issue revolves around when the chiyuv ketubah (ketubah obligation) begins and how this affects various halachic scenarios. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a case where a woman claims she was violated after erusin but before nissuin. Rabbi Gamliel says she is believed (neemenes) and receives her ketubah, while the Chachamim disagree. The fundamental question is whether there exists a din ketubah la'arusa (ketubah obligation for a betrothed woman).
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.
