No community start suggestion yet.
Why were Jewish women willing to die rather than submit to Hegmon's decree? Tosfos and Rashi (רש"י) offer fundamentally different readings of what constitutes martyrdom versus suicide, and when halacha (הלכה) permits self-sacrifice to avoid transgression.
This shiur presents a sophisticated analysis of a dispute between Tosfos and Rashi (רש"י) regarding the famous Gemara (גמרא) in Kesubos 3b about the Greek decree against Jewish brides. The decree stated that any Jewish woman married on Tuesday would be violated by Hegmon first. The Gemara calls this a "sakana" (danger) because women were "moser nefesh" (sacrificing their lives). Rabbi Zweig demonstrates that Rashi and Tosfos fundamentally disagree about what "moser nefesh" means here. According to Rashi, the women thought they would be forbidden to their husbands if violated, so they were willing to die to preserve their marriages. The Gemara's solution - "teach them that onus is permitted" - means instructing them that forced relations don't forbid them to their husbands.
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 3b
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.
