A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When do conflicting chazakos combine to create tartei reisa? The Kesef Mishneh suggests they only combine when dealing with tools or instruments that lack inherent din, not when resolving the status of entities themselves. This yesod explains why certain cases allow tartei reisa while our sugya may not.
The shiur examines a fundamental question in the mechanics of chazakos: when can conflicting presumptions combine to create tartei reisa (two reasons supporting the same conclusion)? The discussion centers on Kesubos 9a and the case of a woman whose virginity status affects her permissibility to marry a kohen. The Gemara (גמרא) presents a safek: was this woman's loss of virginity before or after her marriage? Chezkas haguf (presumption about bodily state) suggests it happened later, while harei beulah lefanecha (the fact of her current non-virgin state) combined with chezkas heter lakehuna (presumption of permissibility to kohen) might support that it happened earlier through tartei reisa.
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 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.
