No community start suggestion yet.
Why does bori v'shema work differently with chazaka than with rov? Tosafot struggles with whether bori garua v'shema tov follows the same rules as bori tov v'shema garua. The analysis reveals fundamental questions about when external proofs like eidim are required versus when baalei dinim can establish facts themselves.
The shiur analyzes complex Tosafot on Kesubos 12b dealing with the mechanics of bori v'shema (certain vs. uncertain claims) and when external verification is required. Rabbi Zweig begins by examining Tosafot's difficulty with the Gemara (גמרא)'s assertion that "lo ki" can only be used as a language of uncertainty (lemite) rather than certainty (bari). Tosafot brings Rabbeinu Chananel's position that by mukeses (hymen intact) versus d'ruzas ish (hymen torn), there are physiological differences that would make both parties certain of their positions, creating a case of bari v'bari rather than bari v'shema. The shiur then addresses a fundamental question about chazaka (presumptive status): if she wins because of her bari combined with chazaka, what exactly is her chazaka? The chazaka of betula indicates the violation happened after kiddushin rather than before, but this still leaves open whether it happened through ones (rape) or beratzon (willingly). Since the majority of such cases involve willing participation (rov beratzon), how can she collect her full kesubah payment?
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 12b
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.
