A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why can't we use chazakas heter lekula to permit an eshes kohen whose virginity was lost at an unknown time? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction that chazakah tells us "nothing happened," not "when something happened." Since we know something occurred, using chazakah requires determining timing—but conflicting chazakos about timing cancel each other out.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Kesubos 9a dealing with the case of an eshes kohen whose virginity was lost at an unknown time. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a safek: did she lose her besulos before marriage (making her forbidden to a kohen) or after (which would be permitted)? Tosafos asks why we cannot apply chazakas heter lekula to permit her. The shiur examines multiple interpretations of Tosafos' approach. One reading suggests that by an eshes kohen, there is only one safek rather than a safek safek, making the case stricter. Another possibility is that chezkas haguf (the assumption that her physical state didn't change) overrides chezkas heter lekula, making her definitively forbidden.
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 9a
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.
