A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) present two separate cases when discussing a woman's testimony about her conduct? The analysis explores Tosafot's complex reading that distinguishes between what witnesses saw versus what the woman claims happened. This leads to fundamental questions about when miggo (better alternative claim) arguments work and how rabbinic stringencies (ma'alos habiyuchsin) interact with Torah (תורה)-level prohibitions.
This shiur presents an intensive analysis of Kesubos 13b, focusing on a complex dispute between Tosafot and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the nature of testimony and credibility in cases involving a woman's marital status. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where witnesses saw a woman in seclusion (yichud) and the question of whether she should be believed regarding what occurred. The central machloket revolves around the interpretation of 'nistra' (secluded). Tosafot argues that nistra means the woman admits to improper conduct, saying 'lekashya nivalti' (I was violated against my will), while claiming she could have said 'lo nivalti' (nothing happened) and been believed through miggo. This interpretation creates several difficulties: why isn't this considered miggo de-boy shasek (a miggo where she could claim the person departed), why doesn't Rabbi Yehoshua accept this miggo, and how does this relate to the principle of ein oisnah la-yichud (we don't suspect a woman of immoral conduct in seclusion).
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 13b
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.
