A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What are the competing approaches of the Rambam (רמב"ם) versus Tosafot regarding whether a wife who was mezana requires witnesses (eidim) to be forbidden to her husband? The shiur develops the fundamental machloket between viewing this as a monetary-like din (requiring higher standards of proof) versus an isur-focused din, with practical ramifications for safek cases.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 9a dealing with the halachic status of a wife who was mezana (committed adultery) and the evidentiary standards required to prohibit her to her husband. Rabbi Zweig examines multiple approaches from Rishonim regarding the fundamental nature of this prohibition. The shiur begins with the core machloket between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and other Rishonim (particularly the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yonah) regarding whether such a woman is believed when she claims "mi she'asani nenasti" (I was forced) or "lav tachas" (it wasn't consensual). The Rambam holds she is not believed, while the Rosh disagrees, leading to fundamental questions about the underlying halachic framework.
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.
