A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does the Mishna's requirement to go to Beis Din mean a couple is forbidden to live together until they receive clarification? Rashi (רש"י) holds they remain permitted to live together while fulfilling the obligation to seek verification. This creates a chiddush that efshar levarer here means a positive duty to clarify, not a prohibition until clarification.
The shiur analyzes the fundamental machlokes between Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos (תוספות) regarding the Mishna's requirement that those who find pesach (פסח) pasuach must go to Beis Din. The core question is whether this creates an issur on the couple until they receive clarification, or whether they remain permitted to live together while fulfilling an obligation to seek verification. Rashi maintains that the couple is mutar to live together immediately, and the Mishna is establishing a chiyuv birur (obligation to clarify) rather than an issur. This understanding emerges from the practical consideration that being mevarer could take months or years - the Mishna cannot mean they are forbidden to live together for such an extended period without specifying a time limit. According to Rashi, efshar levarer here means a positive obligation to make the effort to clarify, but until clarification comes, the couple relies on their current heter.
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 2a
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.
