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.
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.
