No community start suggestion yet.
Does oines (circumstances beyond one's control) invalidate a conditional get? The shiur develops the Gemara (גמרא)'s analysis of whether someone who dies before fulfilling his condition creates a valid get. A key insight emerges about the relationship between oines and yibum obligations.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 2b dealing with the fundamental question of oines b'gittin - whether circumstances beyond one's control (oines) can invalidate a conditional get. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where someone gives his wife a get conditional on his return within twelve months, but he dies before that time expires. Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafot present different approaches to understanding why death would not invalidate the get despite being the ultimate oines. Rashi explains that the conditional get was written specifically to free the wife from yibum obligations - therefore, when the husband dies (creating a yibum situation), he would not want to invoke oines since that would defeat the very purpose of the get. The husband anticipated this scenario and implicitly waived his right to claim oines in cases of death.
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 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.
