A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna need two cases about a woman's credibility regarding intimate relations? The Rambam (רמב"ם)'s psak differs from the Gemara (גמרא)'s two suggested explanations, creating a significant interpretive challenge. The shiur develops that the Rambam reads both cases as establishing credibility for Rabbi Gamaliel — the first to permit the mother to marry a kohen, the second to permit her unborn daughter.
This shiur examines the complex sugya in Kesubos 13a regarding the credibility of a woman's testimony about her intimate relations, focusing particularly on the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s unique interpretation that differs from both major explanations offered in the Gemara (גמרא). The Gemara presents two cases: a woman seen in seclusion (medaberet) and a pregnant woman (muberet), both claiming their relations were with a kosher man. The Gemara asks why two cases are needed and offers two explanations. According to Ziri, the first case involves actual seclusion (nisterah) while the second involves actual relations (nivlah). According to Rav Assi, both cases involve actual relations, but the second case teaches that we also permit her daughter (chad lach shebo, chad lach shebita).
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.
