No community start suggestion yet.
Why would the Gemara (גמרא) challenge Rav Elazar from safek sfeika? The shiur develops that problems requiring clarification cannot be resolved through statistical possibilities alone. A woman known to be a beulah requires actual birur, while a woman maintaining her bethulah status needs only absence of definitive contradiction.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in Kesubos 9a regarding the nature of safek sfeika and when it provides a heter. The Gemara (גמרא) challenges Rav Elazar who holds that a woman found to be a beulah is forbidden to her kohen husband even in a case of safek sfeika. Rabbi Zweig questions why the Gemara assumes this should be permitted as a safek sfeika when normally we follow the principle of efshar levarer - until you clarify, it remains forbidden. The analysis begins with examining Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that the woman must currently be a gedolah, as a ketanah would be permitted since anus to a ketanah is considered halachically inconsequential. This leads to a discussion of when safek sfeika applies and whether the timeframes involved create true fifty-fifty doubts or merely statistical possibilities.
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.
