A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How do we understand the principle of bari v'shema when a husband claims certainty while his wife admits uncertainty about her status? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between being certain someone is lying versus being certain about the facts themselves, showing how different Rishonim read this sugya's approach to chazakos and credibility.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 12b, focusing on the fundamental principle of bari v'shema (certain vs. uncertain claims) and its application in marriage law disputes. The discussion centers on a case where a woman claims "meorastani nanasti" (I was betrothed and married) while her husband disputes this, creating questions about burden of proof and credibility. The shiur begins by examining the Gemara's statement "ukim mamona b'chezkas moreh" and contrasts this with the principle of "amotzu chaver al avarayit." Rabbi Zweig demonstrates how these represent different approaches to understanding why bari v'shema results in "lav bari yadei" - why certainty doesn't automatically prevail over uncertainty.
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.
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.
