No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Gemara (גמרא)'s principle of trei rov (two majorities) work when one rov alone fails? The shiur analyzes the fundamental chakira whether "kol kavua kamach umach" refers to the object being decided upon or the rov itself being bekfiyus.
The shiur opens with a fundamental question on Rashi (רש"י)'s explanation of trei rov (two majorities) in cases of doubt. If one rov doesn't resolve the safek, why should two robim be effective? This leads to an analysis of the machlokes between Rashi and the Rambam (רמב"ם) regarding when the principle of "kol deparsh me'rov parsh" (whatever separates from the majority) applies versus when something is considered kavua (fixed in place). A significant portion focuses on understanding different readings of the Gemara (גמרא)'s language. Rashi interprets "parsh echad mi-Tzipori" as referring to someone who departed from the city, while considering alternative interpretations of whether this refers to movement from a house versus from a city. The shiur examines how this affects our understanding of when the principle of kol deparsh applies.
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.
