No community start suggestion yet.
When someone dies, do we assume they lived until the last possible moment (cheskas chai)? The Taz argues that since life inevitably ends, cheskas chai is "asui lestanos" (destined to change) and invalid when we know death occurred. The Shach counters that cheskas chai remains a valid halachic presumption despite its temporary nature.
This shiur explores a fundamental machlokes about the validity of cheskas chai (presumption of life) when we know someone has died but are uncertain about the timing. The discussion centers on a practical question: if someone receives news of a relative's death but doesn't know whether it occurred within thirty days (requiring full shiva) or after (requiring only one day of mourning), how do we rule? The Maram Mintz initially applies the principle "safek aveilus lehakel" but then argues for being machmir based on cheskas chai. Since we know the person was alive at some point, we assume he lived as long as possible, making the death a "shemu'ah karovah" requiring full shiva. This follows the general rule that we rely on chazakah demikar (original status presumptions).
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 14b
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.
