A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How could Dovid HaMelech live with Bas Sheva when she was married to Uriah? The Gemara (גמרא) offers two approaches: either Dovid acted under duress (oines), or soldiers received conditional gittin before battle that took effect retroactively. The analysis explores the mechanics of conditional divorce and when a woman becomes forbidden to her husband versus other men.
This shiur analyzes Gemara (גמרא) Kesubos 9b's resolution of the apparent problem with Dovid HaMelech's relationship with Bas Sheva while she was married to Uriah HaChiti. The Gemara presents two primary approaches to resolve this difficulty. The first teretz suggests that Dovid acted under oines (duress). However, this raises serious questions about the nature of this duress. Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that Dovid threatened Bas Sheva with death as king creates moral difficulties - would such royal coercion even be legitimate? The shiur explores an alternative understanding that Dovid, through ruach hakodesh, knew this was his proper zivug and convinced Bas Sheva of this divine sanction, similar to stories in Sefer Chassidim where people are misled about religious obligations.
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 9b
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.
