No community start suggestion yet.
Why is the case of a safek chalal who marries into a family considered a sfeik sfeika when the Avnei Miluim argues it should be safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus? The shiur develops a chiddush distinguishing between paskening on the person with the safek versus paskening on those affected by that person. When we're determining the woman's status rather than the man's, we get a genuine sfeik sfeika.
This shiur addresses a fundamental question in the sugya of chalal on Kesubos 14a regarding the nature of sfeik sfeika versus safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a case where a safek chalal falls into a family, and Tosfos maintains this creates a sfeik sfeika for any woman who marries someone from that family. The centuries-old question is: why isn't this simply safek echad beguf, safek echad betaruvus, which would render everyone assur? The Beis Meir attempts to resolve this by comparing it to a case in the Shach involving chickens and eggs. In the Shach's case, when you have one kosher chicken and one safek treif chicken, and find an egg, it's a sfeik sfeika because either the egg came from the kosher chicken, or if it came from the safek chicken, maybe that chicken was actually kosher. However, the Avnei Miluim strongly objects to this comparison, arguing that if both chickens were safek treif (mixed up so we don't know which is which), then both mothers would be assur, and any egg would also be assur - not a sfeik sfeika.
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 14a
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.
