A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Why do we believe a woman who claims her husband was kosher in one case but not another? The Gemara (גמרא) contrasts a case where a woman carefully checks her husband's status versus our Mishna where she doesn't care who she marries. The analysis reveals fundamental questions about when testimony is credible.
The shiur analyzes a challenging Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 14a that compares two cases involving women's testimony about their husbands' status. The first case involves a sofek gerusha (possibly divorced woman) who marries a kohen, creating uncertainty about whether her child is a chalal. The second case from the Mishna involves a woman claiming her deceased husband was kosher. Rabbi Zweig explores the fundamental question of why Rabbi Yehoshua accepts the woman's testimony in the first case but rejects it in our Mishna. The Gemara's answer centers on the principle of "isha bodekes venisas" (a woman investigates before marrying) versus "isha bodekes umezanah" (a woman doesn't carefully investigate who she has relations with).
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
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.
