No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא) require two rovs (city and fields) to permit a found item, when each rov individually would be problematic? The shiur analyzes Rashi (רש"י)'s approach that even certain cases are forbidden due to gezeira, versus the alternative reading that only doubtful cases are at issue.
This shiur analyzes a complex sugya in Kesubos 15a dealing with the halachic principle of rov (majority) in cases of uncertainty. The Gemara (גמרא) discusses a scenario where an item or person's status must be determined based on statistical majorities from different locations - the city versus the fields (sadeh). The central question revolves around why the Gemara requires two rovs to permit something, when having just one rov from either location would seemingly be problematic. Rabbi Zweig presents Rashi (רש"י)'s interpretation that even in cases where we know with certainty that someone came from the city (and thus should be permitted as kal deparish min haparush), it's still forbidden due to a gezeira (rabbinic decree) to prevent confusion with cases of kavua (fixed/established status).
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 15a
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.
