No community start suggestion yet.
Why do both parties receive malkus for forbidden seclusion according to the Rambam (רמב"ם), while the Tur holds only the man is punished? The shiur develops two approaches: Rashi (רש"י)'s view that yichud is forbidden due to suspicion of improper relations, versus the Rambam's position that yichud itself creates forbidden intimacy regardless of actual misconduct.
This shiur analyzes a fundamental dispute between Rishonim regarding the nature of yichud prohibitions, focusing on Kesubos 13b. The Rambam (רמב"ם) rules that both parties receive malkus for yichud violations, while the Tur holds only the man is punished. Rabbi Zweig develops two distinct approaches to resolve this contradiction. The first approach, following Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation, understands that yichud is prohibited because it creates a presumption of improper conduct (machshik b'nevelas). When people violate yichud warnings (mekabel hasra), this strengthens the assumption that inappropriate behavior occurred. Under this reading, only the man typically receives punishment because he is viewed as the aggressor pressuring the woman into compromising situations.
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.
