No community start suggestion yet.
Why would Rav Gamaliel's principle accepting a woman's testimony need additional rov kasher support? The shiur explores whether different types of chazakos - cheskas tzadekes versus cheskas kashrus - create different evidentiary requirements. The analysis shows how bedieved isn't about tragedy but about overturning established psak.
The shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 30b dealing with the interplay between a woman's testimony (bari), Rav Gamaliel's halachic position, and the requirement for rov kasher. The central question is why the Gemara (גמרא) would require additional supporting evidence (rov kasher) when Rav Gamaliel already accepts her testimony as reliable. Rabbi Zweig addresses several fundamental problems in understanding this Gemara, working through the commentaries of Rashi (רש"י), Tosafos (תוספות), and the Rosh. The shiur begins by examining the apparent contradiction: if Rav Gamaliel holds that we accept her bari (clear testimony), why would we need rov kasher as additional support? The Gemara states that without the husband's admission (lo modeh), we still follow Rav Gamaliel, but Abaye adds that if the husband doesn't admit, Rav Gamaliel would be machshir (validate her). However, the requirement for rov kasher seems to undermine this position.
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 30b
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.
