No community start suggestion yet.
How do we apply chazakot when a married woman was mezana? Tosafot relies on cheskat heter leba'al, while the Rosh uses cheskat tzadekes. The shiur shows how these different chazakot lead to fundamentally different rulings about whether the issur is mid'oraisa or mid'rabanan.
The shiur provides an in-depth analysis of a complex sugya in Kesubos regarding the halachic status of a married woman who was mezana, focusing on the fundamental disagreement between Rishonim about which chazaka (legal presumption) to apply. The discussion centers on two primary cases: eishes kohen and eishes Yisrael. Rabbi Zweig explains that Tosafot employs cheskat heter leba'al (presumption that she was permitted to her husband), arguing that we maintain the status quo unless proven otherwise. According to this approach, there are conflicting chazakot - one that the incident happened earlier (when she was mutar) and another that her physical state didn't change until as late as possible. Due to these conflicting chazakot, we cannot rely on chazaka alone, making it only an issur d'rabanan.
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.
