No community start suggestion yet.
When witnesses testify that a woman was not a virgin before her second marriage, why does she receive 100 zuz rather than nothing? The shiur analyzes Tosafos (תוספות)'s complex explanation involving the husband's mindset and explores the Gemara (גמרא)'s concern about potentially causing a kohen to violate issur.
This shiur examines a complex sugya in Kesubos 12a dealing with a woman who marries twice, where witnesses testify she was not a virgin at the time of her second marriage. The fundamental question is why she receives 100 zuz (the amount for a non-virgin) rather than nothing at all, since normally when a woman is proven to be a non-virgin when she was assumed to be a virgin, she loses her entire kesubah due to mekach ta'os (mistaken transaction). The Gemara (גמרא) initially suggests that since she was 'sharei kinesurin' (involved in two marriages), she should receive nothing. Rav Ashi responds that she receives 100 zuz, and Tosafos (תוספות) explains this is because the husband assumes he is marrying a be'ulah (non-virgin), even though the beis din considers her a besulah based on the testimony. This creates an unusual situation where the husband's perception differs from the beis din's halachic determination.
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.
