A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does borei v'shem testimony interact with chazakah to allow extracting money from a muchzik? The shiur develops that a ketubah transforms the husband from a muchzik into a tafus, making this a gezeilah question rather than a chiyuv question. This framework resolves contradictions between this sugya and other Talmudic passages.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Kesubos 12b, focusing on the fundamental tension between the principle of borei v'shem lav borei yodeif (one who knows vs. one who doesn't know - the one who knows doesn't win) and our sugya where a woman can extract her ketubah payment through borei v'shem combined with either migo or chazakah. The shiur begins by examining the Mishna's case where a woman claims 'mishesheitani nesasi' (when you married me I was already married), and the dispute between Rabban Gamliel (who believes her) and Rabbi Yehuda (who doesn't). Rabbi Zweig presents several major kashos from Rishonim. The Rabbeinu Yonah's question involves a contradiction with daf 9's ruling about chutzvi bas gimel cases, where similar borei v'shem testimony should work. The Rosh challenges this, arguing that our case involves borei garuah vs. shem tov (weak knowledge vs. good testimony), unlike the equal-standing case on daf 9. The Mordechai's kasha addresses why migo l'hotzi (migo to extract money) works here when generally mamon ein holchin achar rov (in monetary matters we don't follow majority). The Shach questions this proof since our case involves a ketubah (document). The Tosafos (תוספות) Rid asks about an apparent contradiction with Bava Kamma 46a regarding shor shenagach haparah cases.
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.
