A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
What does midah afkerah mean in the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion of arus v'arusah? The shiur argues that midah afkerah relates to establishing paternity of children, not to whether the woman becomes prohibited. A woman's chezkas kashrus can establish her own permissibility but cannot create paternal obligations for others.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question about the concept of midah afkerah (concern that she became promiscuous) in the context of arus v'arusah (betrothed couple who were intimate). The Gemara (גמרא) in Yevamos seems to suggest that even when witnesses confirm the relationship was with the arus, there remains a chashash midah afkerah. This appears to contradict our Mishna which seems more lenient. Rabbi Zweig develops a crucial distinction between two different halachic questions: (1) whether a woman becomes prohibited (asur) to her husband or to kohanim, and (2) establishing the paternity of any resulting child. The key insight is that midah afkerah only applies to the second question - determining who is the father of a child.
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.
