A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s answer about shnei eidim seem to worsen rather than resolve the original question? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction between two ways a married woman becomes forbidden to her husband. One creates eidei kiyum that changes the marriage status itself; the other merely creates an issur dikeidin without altering the objective marriage reality.
The shiur begins by reviewing the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of when a married woman becomes forbidden to her husband. According to Tosafot, you need eidei kiyum (establishment through witnesses), which would exclude Pesach (פסח) Pasuach. However, since kinui v'stirah is effective, there appears to be a contradiction. The Gemara's resolution seems problematic: if kinui v'stirah requires eid echad b'tumah, this makes the requirement even stricter, seemingly worsening the original difficulty with Pesach Pasuach. Rabbi Zweig explains the Ritva's approach that the havamina established a din of safek with kinui v'stirah, where safek is only assur with kinui v'stirah but not without it. The Gemara's answer is that two witnesses of znut are equivalent to kinui v'stirah regarding the din of safek, with the difference being that most women consent (rov rotzah), making it better than a mere safek.
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!
Sotah 9a
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.
