No community start suggestion yet.
When does the principle of "smach miyut lapalga" (join the minority to the majority) apply in sfeik sfeika cases? Tosfos holds that rov rotzen eliminates true sfeik sfeika, but the Rivosh challenges this with a parallel case from Yevamos. The shiur explores whether statistical safek differs from halachic safek in determining when minorities can be combined.
This advanced Gemara (גמרא) shiur analyzes a complex Tosfos in Kesubos 9a regarding the mechanics of sfeik sfeika and when the principle of "smach miyut lapalga" applies. The shiur begins by reviewing the previous day's analysis of Tosfos, establishing that Tosfos must hold there are two different types of mater (permitted status) - one where the woman was mezanah but not during kidushin (lav tachtov), and another where even if it was during kidushin, it was through force (onis). Rabbi Zweig presents the Kiveger's alternative explanation that Tosfos is not discussing sfeik sfeika at all, but rather arguing that if you start with safek onis/safek rotzen (willing), you cannot then apply sfeik sfeika because if it was willing, it couldn't involve a minor (katana). This creates an internal contradiction that prevents the double doubt from functioning.
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 9a
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.
