No community start suggestion yet.
When someone claims a lost object as theirs (bori), why aren't they defeated by the statistical likelihood (rov) that it belongs to someone else? The shiur develops the principle that rov only works when there's a defined group the object could come from, not when only one specific person lost it.
The shiur analyzes a fundamental question in the laws of lost objects: when someone finds an object and another person claims it's theirs with certainty (bori), why isn't that claim defeated by the statistical probability (rov) that it belongs to someone else in the world? The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when someone says 'bori' (I am certain) versus 'shema' (perhaps), normally the bori wins, but this seems to contradict the principle of rov. Rabbi Zweig develops a crucial distinction in how rov functions. In classic cases like nine kosher stores and one non-kosher store, rov works because there's a defined group - any of the nine kosher stores could have produced the meat in question. The probability calculation works because we're comparing discrete groups where the object could realistically come from multiple sources within the larger group.
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 12b
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.
