No community start suggestion yet.
Why does maalos habiyuchsin override normal rules of belief? The shiur develops two approaches: either it creates higher standards for kohanim to preserve their status awareness, or it protects the integrity of the kehuna itself. A fundamental analysis of whether yichud creates a safek bia or is an independent issur.
This shiur analyzes the complex Gemara (גמרא) on Kesubos 13a regarding the principle of maalos habiyuchsin and its application to cases of yichud. The Gemara presents a machlokes between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel about when a woman is believed regarding her status after being secluded with a man. The shiur begins by examining the dispute between Ziri and Rav Assi about whether "medaberes" means "nistera" (secluded). According to Ziri's interpretation, there's a machlokes Rishonim: the Ramban (רמב"ן), Rosh, and others hold she's not believed to say "lo nivalti" because of maalos habiyuchsin, while Rabbeinu Yonah, the Ridva and others hold she is believed to say "lo nivalti" but cannot use a migu when claiming she was with a kosher man.
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 13a
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.
