No community start suggestion yet.
When can you say smach miut l'palga (combine the minority to half) to create a permissive ruling? The Rivash argues you need a true statistical fifty-fifty in the first doubt, not just any safek. This yesod challenges applications in cases involving money found near animal dealers and questions of techat/lo techat.
The shiur explores a fundamental question in halachic decision-making: under what circumstances can we apply the principle of smach miut l'palga (combining a minority doubt with a fifty-fifty doubt) to reach a lenient conclusion. The discussion centers on a Rivash who establishes a crucial limitation on this principle. The Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos presents a case involving money found in front of animal dealers (socher l'behema). According to Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, there's a safek whether the money fell from the seller (making it chulin) or the buyer (making it ma'aser sheini), yet the Gemara rules it's always ma'aser. The Ri asks: why not apply smach miut l'palga, since even if it fell from the buyer, there's a minority chance it came from his other pocket containing chulin money?
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.
