No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Mishna require a woman to say "bari" (definitely) when claiming her pregnancy is from her husband? The analysis distinguishes between cases with rov kosher versus rov pasul partners, explaining that Rabbi Eliezer holds bari weakens the rov to create a safek, while Rabbi Yochanan holds bari completely nullifies the rov through ne'emanus.
The shiur continues analysis of Kesubos 13b-14a regarding the Mishna's requirement for a woman to declare "bari" (with certainty) when claiming her pregnancy is from her husband. The discussion centers on understanding Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation of why this bari is necessary and how it functions differently depending on whether there is rov kosher or rov pasul in the surrounding population. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a fundamental question about the mechanics of the bari requirement. In cases of muberes (pregnant woman) versus mid-beres (one who gave birth recently), different halachic principles apply. For mid-beres, Rashi explains that the heter (permission) is based on "ein suffek" - there is no doubt because there's no suffix situation. However, for muberes, the heter works through her bari overcoming the statistical probability.
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 13b-14a
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.
