No community start suggestion yet.
When determining if a woman may remain married to her husband, which principle applies — bori (certainty) or chazakah (presumptive status)? Rashi (רש"י) argues that by a ketana (minor), bori has no weight since she lacks discriminating ability, so the hetter must work through chazakah alone. This reading resolves Tosafos (תוספות)'s difficulties about why the Gemara (גמרא) doesn't invoke bori in both the hava amina and maskanah.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos regarding the principles that permit a woman to remain married when there are questions about her husband's status. The central debate revolves around whether the halachic permission operates through the principle of bori (certainty of statement) or chazakah (presumptive status). Rashi (רש"י)'s position is that the entire sugya does not rely on bori at all, neither in the hava amina nor the maskanah. His reasoning is based on the case involving a ketana (minor girl). Since a ketana lacks the intellectual capacity for discriminating judgment, her statement cannot carry the weight of bori. Additionally, she cannot be considered "isha bodekes umazanah" (a woman who examines and is careful), which would be necessary for that principle to apply.
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 14a-15a
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.
