No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rabbi Gamaliel accept a woman's testimony about yichud but not about shvuya (captivity)? The shiur develops the Rashbam's distinction: by yichud she retains her chezkas kashrus until proven otherwise, but by shvuya the rov goyim prutzim creates a legal presumption of nivala that removes her chazakah from the start.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding a woman's credibility in cases of yichud versus shvuya. The Gemara (גמרא) states that while Rabbi Yehoshua can bring a proof from shvuya to yichud, the reverse doesn't work because 'rov goyim prutzim b'arayos' by gentiles, which doesn't apply to Jews. Rabbi Yehoshua responds 'ein apitrupus l'arayos' - there's no guardian for immorality. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation creates a difficulty: if ein apitrupus l'arayos simply means 'you can't say lo niv'ala' (she wasn't violated), how does this constitute a proof from shvuya where we assume there was violation? The shiur resolves this by explaining that Rabbi Yehoshua's position is that once any safek exists regarding yichud, we require proper witnesses (eidim) to resolve the matter of lineage (ma'alos asur b'yuchsin).
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 13b
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.
