No community start suggestion yet.
Is shav v'nafshah chateach al issuro a form of testimony (eidus) or a personal vow (neder)? The shiur analyzes the Rambam (רמב"ם)-Raavad dispute and the Tosafot Rid's position through the lens of whether one can be mafkir another's rights. This chakira determines when amasla works and whether beit din has judicial or merely rabbinical authority in such cases.
The shiur explores a fundamental chakira regarding the nature of shav v'nafshah chateach al issuro - whether it functions as a form of testimony (eidus) or as a personal vow/prohibition (neder). This question emerges from analyzing several key sources and disputes. The primary focus is the machlokes between the Rambam (רמב"ם) and Raavad regarding a married woman who tells her husband she was mezanah b'ratzon (committed adultery willingly) and then gets divorced. The Rambam holds that even if she gives an amasla (retraction/explanation), she remains forbidden to a kohen. The Raavad disagrees, holding that an amasla would work. Rabbi Zweig explains that this dispute reflects different understandings of shav v'nafshah.
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 9a
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.
