No community start suggestion yet.
What creates the issur of a married woman to her husband after being with a non-Jew? The shiur explores whether it's driven by violating the issur of adultery or by the tumah created through the forbidden relationship itself. This chakira between the Marik and Rabbeinu Tam has major nafka minas for cases of ones versus ratzon.
The shiur begins by continuing yesterday's discussion on Rabbeinu Tam's position that a behema is not called a sheretz, addressing the Rivam's question about Esther's statement to Mordechai. The analysis focuses on understanding when bias akum (relations with a non-Jew) creates issur labaila (prohibition to return to her husband). Rabbi Zweig presents the fundamental chakira between two approaches. The Marik holds that issur labaila is driven by tumah - the very act of relations with someone other than her husband creates spiritual impurity, regardless of whether an actual aveira was committed. According to this view, even in cases of ones (coercion) or when the woman believes it's mutar, she becomes asur labaila because the tumah is created by the act itself, not by violating a prohibition.
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 3b
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.
