A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What happens when witnesses see a woman go into seclusion (yichud) versus when they see actual improper relations? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Zeiri and Rav Assi about whether yichud alone creates a halachic concern requiring the woman's testimony, or whether only actual witnessed impropriety matters.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of the complex sugya in Kesubos 13a dealing with the halachic implications of witnessed yichud (seclusion) versus witnessed improper relations. The central focus is the machloket between Zeiri and Rav Assi regarding whether yichud alone creates a halachic safek requiring clarification from the woman involved. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the difficult kashas in Tosafos (תוספות), particularly the apparent contradiction between this sugya and the previous one regarding migu (the halachic principle that if someone could have made a better lie, we believe their current statement). The shiur demonstrates how Tosafos assumes that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, migu should work in cases of yichud, creating a fundamental inconsistency.
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 13a
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.
