A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When can a woman be believed to say she was unfaithful to a kosher man rather than a pasul one? The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel about testimony in cases where adultery is suspected, exploring the roles of rov (majority), chazakah (presumptive status), and miggo (credibility enhancement).
This shiur provides a detailed analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos 13a dealing with the testimony of women suspected of adultery. The discussion centers on two main cases: a pregnant woman (muberes) and a woman who speaks as if she had relations (medaberes), and how their testimony is evaluated when they claim to have been unfaithful to a kosher man rather than a pasul one. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Yehoshua argues that just as by shevuyah (a captive woman), where there are witnesses that she was violated and the majority of captors are gentiles (who would render her unfit for kehunah), she is not believed to say she wasn't violated, so too in our cases she shouldn't be believed. Rabban Gamaliel responds by distinguishing between cases: by shevuyah there are witnesses she was violated (yesh eidim), while in our case there are no such witnesses (ein eidim).
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.
