No community start suggestion yet.
Why does Rashi (רש"י) say ein apotropus la'arayos is a safek when discussing shvuya, but treats midaberes differently? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: according to Rav Gamaliel, midaberes creates no safek at all, unlike muberes where a real safek exists. This explains why rov doesn't apply equally across different cases.
This shiur addresses several fundamental questions (kashas) on Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation of the Gemara (גמרא)'s discussion regarding a woman's believability in different circumstances. The primary focus is understanding why Rashi treats ein apotropus la'arayos as a safek regarding shvuya, while seemingly handling midaberes (speaking woman) differently. The shiur begins by outlining three main kashas on Rashi: First, ein apotropus la'arayos appears to be a safek, yet it's used to address the din of shvuya which Rashi describes as vadai nivala. Second, Rashi seems to learn that rov psulim works through chazaka, which should trigger the rule of rov vs. chazaka. Third, why doesn't the Gemara ask its kasha about rov psulim vs. rov ksheirim on muberes as well as on midaberes?
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 13a
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.
