No community start suggestion yet.
When does liability for knas (monetary penalty) begin in cases of oinas - at initial contact or only upon completion? The shiur contrasts Rashi (רש"י)'s view that liability depends on actual violation of virginity with Tosafos (תוספות)' approach that treats the entire act as one continuous violation subject to kim lei d'rabbanan principles.
This shiur provides an in-depth analysis of Sanhedrin 73b, focusing on the complex halachic question of when a person becomes liable for knas (monetary penalty) in cases of oinas (rape). The Gemara (גמרא) discusses whether financial obligation begins at ha'arah (initial contact) or only at gemar bi'ah (completion of the act). Rashi (רש"י)'s position is examined first, arguing that one is not liable for payment until gemar bi'ah based on the principle "shemoit zi besulah" - because the Torah (תורה) is particular about the status of besulah (virgin). Rashi brings the pasuk "na'arah besulah asher lo aras" to show that the monetary obligation stems from hasharas besulah (breaking virginity), which occurs at gemar bi'ah.
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!
Sanhedrin 73b
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.
