A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What's the difference between following your personal rebbe versus the rav of your location? Rashi (רש"י) distinguishes between talmidim who must follow their rebbe even when he's lenient, and residents who cannot oppose the local rav's rulings but aren't required to follow them when stricter than necessary.
This shiur analyzes a complex passage in Kesubos 5b that explores the distinction between following one's personal rebbe versus adhering to the authority of the local rav (mar de-asra). The Gemara (גמרא) presents what appears to be a contradiction regarding Rav's position on davar she'ein miskaven (unintentional action), showing him being both lenient and strict in different contexts. Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary provides crucial insight by distinguishing between two types of rabbinic authority. When the Gemara says talmidim must "do like Rav," Rashi explains this refers to students in Rav's yeshiva who are obligated to follow their rebbe's rulings, even when he is lenient (makeel). However, when discussing Shmuel as "rav of the place" (mar de-asra), the obligation is different - residents cannot actively oppose the local authority's rulings, but they are not necessarily required to adopt his stringencies if they prefer to be lenient.
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 5b
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.
