No community start suggestion yet.
Does passive participation in a transgression require martyrdom under yehareg v'al yaavor? The Ri holds that women are like karka olam (passive) in gilui arayos, paralleling one who is pushed to commit murder. Both escape the obligation of martyrdom since they remain shev v'al tasa despite the transgression.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute regarding yehareg v'al yaavor (martyrdom obligations) and the concept of passive transgression. The central question is whether someone who transgresses passively - without actively performing the forbidden act - is still obligated to choose death over sin. The Ri (Rabbeinu Yitzchok) presents a novel position regarding Esther's case. He argues that a woman is considered karka olam (like land/passive) in cases of gilui arayos (sexual transgression), and therefore does not have the obligation of yehareg v'al yaavor when forced into such situations. His reasoning draws a parallel to the case of rotzeach (murder): just as someone who is pushed onto another person to kill them is not obligated to die rather than be used as an instrument of murder, so too a woman who remains passive in gilui arayos is not required to choose martyrdom.
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 3b
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.
