No community start suggestion yet.
What distinguishes tainas domem from tainas pesach (פסח) pasuch in claims about a bride's status? When there are objective facts (like absence of blood) showing she wasn't a virgin, that creates tainas domem - not merely competing testimonies. The chazaka of ein adam torech b'suda mafsida then supports the visible facts rather than determining who's lying.
This shiur presents a fundamental analysis of the Gemara (גמרא)'s distinction between two types of claims (tainas) regarding a bride's virginity status and the resulting implications for belief and financial obligations. The discussion centers on Kesubos and explores when a husband's claim that his bride was not a virgin (pesach (פסח) pasuch) is believed versus when there are objective facts supporting his position (tainas domem). Rabbi Zweig establishes that pesach pasuch represents a situation where both parties are making competing claims about the truth - he says she wasn't a virgin, she says she was. In such cases, we apply the chazaka of ein adam torech b'suda mafsida (a person doesn't cause himself a loss) to determine credibility. However, tainas domem represents a fundamentally different scenario where objective evidence exists supporting one party's claim.
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 9b
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.
