No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) ask that Rabbi Yehoshua's position on yichud contradicts the principle of "ein oisin al ha-yichud"? The shiur develops Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that Rabbi Yehoshua only forbids when we assume actual improper relations occurred. This leads to a fundamental distinction in the Rambam (רמב"ם) between different types of yichud violations and their respective punishments.
The shiur begins by analyzing the Gemara (גמרא)'s challenge to Rabbi Yehoshua's position on yichud. The Gemara asks why Rabbi Yehoshua would forbid a woman to Kohanim based on yichud when the principle states "ein oisin al ha-yichud" - we don't forbid based on yichud alone. Rabbi Zweig examines Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that the Gemara is asking specifically about "ein oisin isha ba'alah" - not forbidding a married woman to her husband based on yichud. According to Rashi's understanding, Rabbi Yehoshua doesn't forbid in cases of ordinary yichud, but only when "mishum yichud machzik lo b'nevelas" - when we assume improper relations actually occurred due to the circumstances of the yichud. This occurs specifically when they were "re'u midabris" - speaking about improper matters, which indicates their immoral intentions.
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 13a
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.
