A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How can someone be believed about their prohibited status when witnesses contradict them? The shiur distinguishes between shavi nafsho as testimony (where the person is a better witness about themselves than others) versus shavi nafsho as personal conviction (where we cannot feed someone what they believe is forbidden). This framework resolves apparent contradictions in the Gemara (גמרא) and Rambam (רמב"ם).
This shiur addresses a fundamental question about the halacha (הלכה) of shavi nafsho chatich d'issur (one is equal to a piece of forbidden matter regarding themselves). The Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 2a-2b presents an apparent contradiction: sometimes shavi nafsho requires that we believe the person knows what they're talking about (kim lei), while other times it applies even when there's uncertainty (lo kim lei). Rabbi Zweig analyzes the dispute between Rashi (רש"י), the Shitah Mekubetzes, and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding when kim lei is required. The central difficulty emerges from a responsum of the Rashbam: if two witnesses testify that someone performed proper shechita while the person claims it was invalid, how can we apply shavi nafsho when there's good reason to doubt the person's expertise? This seems to contradict the principle that shavi nafsho only applies when we believe the person knows what they're discussing.
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 2a-2b
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.
