No community start suggestion yet.
What level of witness testimony is needed to establish that adultery occurred? The Gemara (גמרא) distinguishes between witnesses who saw mere seclusion (yichud) versus those who witnessed actual adultery, but a deeper analysis reveals a third category: seclusion with clear intention that creates a presumption of adultery.
This shiur analyzes Kesubos 13b's discussion of different levels of witness testimony regarding adultery and their respective legal consequences. The Gemara (גמרא) initially appears to distinguish between two categories: witnesses who saw only seclusion (yichud) and those who witnessed actual adultery (biah). However, Rabbi Zweig develops a fundamental insight that there exists a third, intermediate category. The shiur begins by examining the case where a woman claims her child is from a specific kohen versus claiming it's from an unspecified kohen. This leads to a novel chiddush: when she specifies the father, the child may be able to perform Temple service (avoda), unlike when she makes a general claim, where rabbinic law (din derabanan) disqualifies the child from service due to uncertain lineage (zerah meyuchas).
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 13b
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.
