No community start suggestion yet.
When a child is found abandoned, what determines their status as Jewish or non-Jewish? The Gemara (גמרא) examines whether we follow the majority population of the area and explores how this principle applies differently to financial obligations versus life-threatening situations.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 13a, which discusses the halachic status of a found child (tinok mushlach). The fundamental question is whether we determine the child's Jewish status based on the majority population in the area where they were found. The Gemara presents a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding different applications of this principle. Rav holds that if the majority of residents are Jewish (rov Yisroel), we are obligated in l'chayuso - financially supporting the child. However, for pikuach nefesh situations requiring violating Shabbos (שבת), even a 50/50 doubt (mechtzah al mechtzah) would require us to save the child's life. Shmuel goes further, arguing that even if the majority are non-Jews (rov akum), we must still violate Shabbos for pikuach nefesh due to the possibility the child is Jewish.
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.
